Around here a consulting company has specialised in this (you don't get an interview unless you have an autism spectrum diagnosis) and last I heard it wasn't at all sad:
Some autistic people with correct skills were paid good money to do things they really liked well like iron out rare bugs in financial services etc.
So not only to fill some quota and not taken advantage of. Oh, and said company made good money IIRC.
I have a great job with a large information services company troubleshooting large expensive complicated software and large expensive complicated data.
I donate a substantial portion of my salary to charity. My primary reason for doing so is because I derive utility from the feeling of contributing to the collective good of humanity.
Does that make my good acts and charitable contributions somehow less valuable?
Moreover, the entire point of such tax incentives is to offset the additional difficulty and cost of employing challenging employees.
>A debate rages about when and how to include autistic children in mainstream classes.
Oh does this ever bring up a whole bag full of unpleasant childhood memories. I get that it's difficult for those with disabilities to function in 'normal' settings - I've got a physical handicap that is obvious from time to time (but hidden otherwise). In turn I never sought out activities for which I was an incorrect fit - you know, hockey, wrestling, soccer - they weren't going to change the sport to make it easier for me to play, nor should I expect them to. We are not all equal.
If there's a way to solve the mentioned debate, I think it will still take another 40 years for us to figure it out. We can't even take care of Gifted and Talented students with any systemic, national and local support, to fulfill their potential. If we're talking "beautiful minds" going to waste then, honestly, I think we should start with this end of the spectrum.
This article is, by and large, a plea for help and paints an extensively rosy and joyous picture of employing a person with the mentioned handicap. After half of my lifetime + change working in hourly or professional jobs, I did not particularly share the same optimism. Good help is hard to find, and that's before even considering "making little accommodations" for potentially disruptive conditions. I'm just not quite so optimistic, but would love to see society figure a lot of this stratified talent capitalization out sooner rather than later.
I think you raise some good points, but I don't really know what it's like working with autistic individuals. People working hourly jobs present a wide variety of staffing problems. They don't show up for their shifts on a whim because they had something better to do, or they had an emergency or are sick and don't call in or find someone to cover. People lose their tempers at difficult customers, they stand around talking or playing on their phones instead of working the line, they step out on unauthorized breaks, etc. etc.
I'm sure autistic individuals will have some of these problems, and some unique ones, but I suspect they are free of some others. If someone is living in a controlled environment they are less likely to have scheduling difficulties or a busy social life that interferes with work, for example. Some will be completely unfazed by any sort of conflict or confrontation and will go on doing their best regardless. On the whole, I bet a lot of them are actually exemplary employees that simply require a different but no more onerous set of accommodations than a "normal" employee.
Oh I follow your thought process and definitely feel like agreement is natural. I guess that's kind of what I was itching at - that even starting from a blank sheet of paper, finding good, reliable, mature employees in many respects is difficult. I always hated when a "slacker" employee or a habitual "no show" meant more work for me, and that's probably a pretty natural condition. Thus when the article does mention - albeit somewhat politely - that some accommodations shouldn't be that difficult, I'm incredulous. "Regular" people already come with their own litany of issues, it's just modern life!
I can say that for years and years a local grocery store I frequented had a few employees with Downs Syndrome. They were able to perform some menial tasks like bagging quite well. They arrived as a group, and from what I recall, the system worked as intended.
On the other hand, down the street was a grocery store that hired teenagers - run of the mill 15 and 16 year olds - to be bag people and possibly a cashier. These were the only jobs the teenagers were qualified to do. I'm not intending to take sides here, but it does strike me as an economic puzzle where now there's two groups of people - the handicapped, and the immature youth - both competing for the same low-level job. That's...not good.
Add in a 3rd group - the "must work because Social Security doesn't pay enough" elderly seeming to not leave the workforce, and it's no surprise a consumer-centric economic system like the US grinds to a halt. The natural cycle is, in my view, busted.
I was one of those teenagers who was able to get into the workforce early, and I genuinely believe it has helped my growth both as an employee, but also a citizen. I'm grateful for the opportunities I've had, and it genuinely does pain me to survey the current US workforce situation and lament conditions which I have no real solution to offer.
I'm a little bit puzzled by your statement, "These were the only jobs the teenagers were qualified to do."
Surely there's other work, possibly more of it these days, for teenagers to do. For instance, with an increase in the percentage of dual-income households (as opposed to the single-income households which dominated in the past), there are more families in need of babysitters or tutors.
When I was a teen, there was a high demand for tutoring services, dog-walking, and minor web development work to be performed by teens. And wouldn't the teenagers for whom this bagging gig isn't a permanent sort of job be better suited in a position that offered more educational opportunity (e.g., tutoring younger students, or learning some web dev and making a website for a local SMB).
One could argue that the employees with disabilities are freeing up the teenagers to do work that gives them more educational benefit, like the power looms freed up textile manufacturing workers to find more economically valuable work in the long run.
>a local grocery store I frequented had a few employees with Downs Syndrome. They were able to perform some menial tasks like bagging quite well.
I found that downs syndrome workers are often the most cheerful and pleasant to interact with.
There is one girl with downs that works at collecting the grocery carts at the supermarket. She greets customers really happily, like she's living that "Everything is Awesome" song on a loop, and even remembers some customers' birthdays.
In short, my answer to your "why" actually rhymes: ROI, that's why.
A gifted, talented, socially well adjusted person has an extensive potential to do amazing things. Thus, it's my perspective that starting with those who have un-actualized talent - those with the capacity, aptitude and attitude to rise high in achievement - is more compelling than spending extensive time and money on maximizing the use of a limited capacity. That's kind of the whole thought behind trying to identify smart and capable people - it's their potential.
> The range of consequences is also wide. At one end, the autism of a computer scientist may be barely noticeable; at the other, a quarter of autistic children do not speak.
Ya, I'm a computer scientist with Aspergers (part of the Autism spectrum), one app that I wrote was for non-verbal autistic kids to allow them to speak via an IPad (OneVoice). I can't imagine having to deal with that.
It makes intuitive sense that there's a bias towards mild autism/Aspergers in high-skill computer scientists.
Most would probably say that their "education" began long before any kind of formal schooling in the topic. It takes a certain kind of child to stay inside and poke at computers all day instead of going outside and doing something social. And in general, the hyper-focus of mild autism is exactly the kind of thing that drives people to become highly proficient in a technical topic.
And on the flip side, severe autism is a nightmare. Although modern society doesn't really do them any favors - historically there were lots of repetitive tasks that needed doing, a person with fairly severe autism could be perfectly fine working in a bakery or blacksmithing or something. Nowadays we really have two kinds of jobs - high skilled, for which we expect people to sit through a lot of formal education, and service jobs, which are highly social jobs usually involving "emotional labor". Neither of those is very suitable for someone with severe autism.
The article notes that Walgreen's (exclusively service jobs) has found their autisitc employees are as productive as normal ones. Do you think that they are not employing people with severe autism?
> It takes a certain kind of child to stay inside and poke at computers all day instead of going outside and doing something social.
a) Why do you assume that working on computers at a young age necessarily implies social impairment? I've been working on different ideas (particularly games and businesses) with friends since I was 12.
b) Many sports also require hyper-focus to excel at a young age. If you're willing to use that as a criterion for autism, why aren't exceptional athletes who spend hours a day shooting hoops alone considered autistic?
Leaving aside the tastelessness of phrasing the question this way, you may be underestimating the prevalence of mental health disorders in general. This is the NIMH's page on the prevalence of schizophrenia in the general population, for instance:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/schizop...
It sounds like the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders is a bit over double that, but as the article notes, that includes "functional" autists whose symptoms may be hardly noticeable to those around them.
Since the rate of autism diagnosis has increased, I'd also like to hear more about the predictive accuracy of some of those statistics. When you read that only 50% of autistic children in the US graduate high school, you have to read that in the context of rapidly increasing diagnosis. Does that mean that the kids that are currently being diagnosed still have only a 50% chance of graduating?
Let me rephrase it, are we diagnosing these disorders wrongly or are we heading towards a human population which has more people with disorders then not? Because 1 in 38 or 42 are scary numbers.
I don't think that's a meaningful question. One could go back a couple of centuries, before germ and virus theory was developed, and ask the same thing about physical illnesses.
It would be more accurate IMO to say that we're getting a better understanding of traits and characteristics of the human mind, some of which we currently have reason to believe are disorders, and are getting better at detecting those traits/characteristics.
I do wish people would stop romanticizing autism with phrases like "beautiful minds".
From personal experience, I can tell you that there is nothing too beautiful about growing up with a brother who never stopped throwing tantrums like a toddler, whose intelligence never developed beyond about three years old, and who without the right medication won't stop hitting his own forehead and barking like a dog.
Autism is a spectrum. This beautiful minds piece is likely referring to controlled autism, where you get the special power of deep thought and mindless work ethic without the tantrums part.
Tbh I think there are two kinds of autism. 'Real' autism, like your brother has, or people who cannot speak, etc. This kind seems to be much rarer, but a tragedy for everyone involved. I read an article (linked here on HN but I can't find it anymore) about someone taking care of such an autistic person and it is heartbreaking.
The other kind I would call 'newest fad' autism that people who are a bit socially awkward label themselves with, and pride themselves with their 'beautiful mind' and their intelligence. Bonus points: They don't have to improve themselves and their social skills because it's a mental health thing and out of their control.
The catalogues of mental disorders (like DSM) say a lot about a society.
Describing high-functioning autism as a "fad" which excuses those with it from having to "improve themselves" is both unpleasant and ignorant. Some autistic people have perfectly normal intelligence and language skills, yet may suffer from some or all of:
- incomprehension of and bafflement by social cues and conventions that the rest of us take for granted; this is far more than just being "socially awkward", and was famously described by Temple Grandin as like being "an anthropologist on Mars"
- a heavy reliance on routine, and discomfort or distress when that routine is disrupted
- over-sensitivity to sensory stimulation, which can make things like a trip to the supermarket (strip lighting, PA announcements, crowds, the smell of produce and other people's bodies) hellish.
Every medical condition has degrees of severity. Look at broken bones. A fractured toe doesn't use a different word than fracture just because a compound fracture of an arm is much more serious. The DSM recognizes subtleties and degrees of mental problems which can be important in dealing with someones' overall mental health.
"If you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism." -- Stephen Shore, professor of special education at Adelphi University and person with autism.
I agree. I wish the field of psychiatry would address these problems honestly and scientifically, rather than inventing and voting disorders into their manual.
Hell, even botany is complex. Every Wikipedia article I read on a plant species seems to invariably have a long section talking about various places the plant has been on the taxonomic tree at different points in time and how scientists still aren't sure where to stick it.
Throwing out your pet quote like that was much like reading a microsoft help manual. Technically correct, but no help at all.
It didn't really address djrobstep's post apart from a trite, "Everyone is different," observation, and certainly didn't address the real pain and grief there can be, caring and loving someone with such serious disabilities.
I think removing the Asperger's from the DSM was in many ways a disservice. It was a useful distinction of high level autistics, which is really the group the article is talking about for the most part, to the more seriously effected like djrobstep's brother.
And to finish with a quote of my own:
“In an ideal world the scientist should find a method to prevent the most severe forms of autism but allow the milder forms to survive. After all, the really social people did not invent the first stone spear. It was probably invented by an Aspie who chipped away at rocks while the other people socialized around the campfire. Without autism traits we might still be living in caves.”
-- Temple Grandin
Thank you for sharing this. My wife works with autistic patients regularly (pediatric dentist) and one of the main things I have learned is that what is popularly thought of as Autism can be far removed from reality. Which isn't a judgement of any kind on people with Autism but (as I suspect your post intends) to concur that if people want to discuss / share opinions on Autism, learning a bit more about what Autism really means would be a good next step.
There's a disturbing trend emerging that I really don't like, and it's not the conventional "autistic people will not make good workers" argument. In fact, it's something of an inverse: the expectation that every autistic person you hire is going to be an idiot-savant that will have unparalleled focus and attention to detail once you hire them.
Autistic people are still people. They make mistakes. They're not robots. I'm glad we've moved away from blacklisting them, but we're getting to the point of fetishizing them instead. Both directions are still dehumanizing.
5 years reading fist post. Has anyone ever thought of not putting so much effort on so called education. Many of tease beautiful minds are able to do things without the academics that others go though to become Qualified in. Where as when you try to force them to go though school they are unable to adapt to that completely unrelated medium of learning.
Me personaly I dropped out of High school on my 6th year because I was unable to get past 9th grade English. Never got though collage never got my GED, and not due to a lack of trying. I am now in my 3rd engineering job not in title but in the work I preform. 1st structural engineer, 2nd Mechanical engineer, and now Systems engineer. I am not going to try to clam to be a genius but I do find myself ecelling above some of the engineers who delegate there projects to me.
There are so many fields out there where these people not just the autistic can learn to do just by doing. The only reason they are stuck flipping burgers is because we have this preconception that you can not learn without a certificate form a institution of Higher education.
FYI Sorry For the bad spelling I reviewed this for 30 min, and fixed everything I could find.
Most of the spelling errors in their post were 'wrong word' errors, aka the [Cupertino effect][0]. A spell checker would not have found those. It's possible they were also relying on auto-completion, which increases this type of error.
Thanks for commenting. Don't worry about spelling. I can't believe how militant some people are about it in every last situation. This is supposed to be a forum where ideas matter most. So keep on posting if you have them. If spelling gives you anxiety, a little pass through a wordprocessor should clear up any clangers. Sure you know already.
Anyway, your point resonated because I know many who struggle to express themselves with confidence but could solve the heck out of most engineering problems. These people are often the most fascinating to hear from, juggling every idea from all angles. Some kind of proof of aptitude is needed that doesn't require ye olde worlde 'academic' approaches.
I at least sympathize. In college I was either one of the best students in the school or one of the worst. Consistently was at least 2 standard deviations ahead of the class in compilers and strong in abstract maths, but I failed every writing course at least once. I spent roughly a year and a half taking and retaking writing courses after finishing all my other courses and nearly got kicked out.
If someone excels in something, nurture that; don't shut talented people out of their potential because they have deficiencies elsewhere.
This is part of an overarching goal to do just that. Find people who have been marginalized due to past prejudices and give them the tools needed to thrive. Programs that help disabled people find and maintain jobs tend to be significantly less expensive than the old technique of just warehousing them.
The German company "auticon" is employing autistic consultants exclusively (medical diagnosis required). Recently, I happened to talk to one of their in-house coaches, and from what I've heard, they seem to make quite an effort to create a work environment in which people with autism can thrive.
73 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadI did not know that Walgreen’s does that.
Do not think they do this out of the kindness of their heart.
It's self-serving narcissism the whole way down.
> narcissism
Is there actual narcissism here rather than mundane following of incentives?
Around here a consulting company has specialised in this (you don't get an interview unless you have an autism spectrum diagnosis) and last I heard it wasn't at all sad:
Some autistic people with correct skills were paid good money to do things they really liked well like iron out rare bugs in financial services etc.
So not only to fill some quota and not taken advantage of. Oh, and said company made good money IIRC.
It's a laugh. Innit.
Or: Which matters more to you, that they help people, or that their hearts are pure?
Does that make my good acts and charitable contributions somehow less valuable?
Moreover, the entire point of such tax incentives is to offset the additional difficulty and cost of employing challenging employees.
Oh does this ever bring up a whole bag full of unpleasant childhood memories. I get that it's difficult for those with disabilities to function in 'normal' settings - I've got a physical handicap that is obvious from time to time (but hidden otherwise). In turn I never sought out activities for which I was an incorrect fit - you know, hockey, wrestling, soccer - they weren't going to change the sport to make it easier for me to play, nor should I expect them to. We are not all equal.
If there's a way to solve the mentioned debate, I think it will still take another 40 years for us to figure it out. We can't even take care of Gifted and Talented students with any systemic, national and local support, to fulfill their potential. If we're talking "beautiful minds" going to waste then, honestly, I think we should start with this end of the spectrum.
This article is, by and large, a plea for help and paints an extensively rosy and joyous picture of employing a person with the mentioned handicap. After half of my lifetime + change working in hourly or professional jobs, I did not particularly share the same optimism. Good help is hard to find, and that's before even considering "making little accommodations" for potentially disruptive conditions. I'm just not quite so optimistic, but would love to see society figure a lot of this stratified talent capitalization out sooner rather than later.
I'm sure autistic individuals will have some of these problems, and some unique ones, but I suspect they are free of some others. If someone is living in a controlled environment they are less likely to have scheduling difficulties or a busy social life that interferes with work, for example. Some will be completely unfazed by any sort of conflict or confrontation and will go on doing their best regardless. On the whole, I bet a lot of them are actually exemplary employees that simply require a different but no more onerous set of accommodations than a "normal" employee.
I can say that for years and years a local grocery store I frequented had a few employees with Downs Syndrome. They were able to perform some menial tasks like bagging quite well. They arrived as a group, and from what I recall, the system worked as intended.
On the other hand, down the street was a grocery store that hired teenagers - run of the mill 15 and 16 year olds - to be bag people and possibly a cashier. These were the only jobs the teenagers were qualified to do. I'm not intending to take sides here, but it does strike me as an economic puzzle where now there's two groups of people - the handicapped, and the immature youth - both competing for the same low-level job. That's...not good.
Add in a 3rd group - the "must work because Social Security doesn't pay enough" elderly seeming to not leave the workforce, and it's no surprise a consumer-centric economic system like the US grinds to a halt. The natural cycle is, in my view, busted.
I was one of those teenagers who was able to get into the workforce early, and I genuinely believe it has helped my growth both as an employee, but also a citizen. I'm grateful for the opportunities I've had, and it genuinely does pain me to survey the current US workforce situation and lament conditions which I have no real solution to offer.
Surely there's other work, possibly more of it these days, for teenagers to do. For instance, with an increase in the percentage of dual-income households (as opposed to the single-income households which dominated in the past), there are more families in need of babysitters or tutors.
When I was a teen, there was a high demand for tutoring services, dog-walking, and minor web development work to be performed by teens. And wouldn't the teenagers for whom this bagging gig isn't a permanent sort of job be better suited in a position that offered more educational opportunity (e.g., tutoring younger students, or learning some web dev and making a website for a local SMB).
One could argue that the employees with disabilities are freeing up the teenagers to do work that gives them more educational benefit, like the power looms freed up textile manufacturing workers to find more economically valuable work in the long run.
I found that downs syndrome workers are often the most cheerful and pleasant to interact with.
There is one girl with downs that works at collecting the grocery carts at the supermarket. She greets customers really happily, like she's living that "Everything is Awesome" song on a loop, and even remembers some customers' birthdays.
Also see: http://www.theonion.com/article/developmentally-disabled-bur...
A gifted, talented, socially well adjusted person has an extensive potential to do amazing things. Thus, it's my perspective that starting with those who have un-actualized talent - those with the capacity, aptitude and attitude to rise high in achievement - is more compelling than spending extensive time and money on maximizing the use of a limited capacity. That's kind of the whole thought behind trying to identify smart and capable people - it's their potential.
I'm not sure what is meant by that. There are plenty of gifted and talented students who are nowhere near the autism spectrum.
This makes me both laugh and cry.
Most would probably say that their "education" began long before any kind of formal schooling in the topic. It takes a certain kind of child to stay inside and poke at computers all day instead of going outside and doing something social. And in general, the hyper-focus of mild autism is exactly the kind of thing that drives people to become highly proficient in a technical topic.
And on the flip side, severe autism is a nightmare. Although modern society doesn't really do them any favors - historically there were lots of repetitive tasks that needed doing, a person with fairly severe autism could be perfectly fine working in a bakery or blacksmithing or something. Nowadays we really have two kinds of jobs - high skilled, for which we expect people to sit through a lot of formal education, and service jobs, which are highly social jobs usually involving "emotional labor". Neither of those is very suitable for someone with severe autism.
a) Why do you assume that working on computers at a young age necessarily implies social impairment? I've been working on different ideas (particularly games and businesses) with friends since I was 12.
b) Many sports also require hyper-focus to excel at a young age. If you're willing to use that as a criterion for autism, why aren't exceptional athletes who spend hours a day shooting hoops alone considered autistic?
Are we calling every socially awkward kid autistic or did we, as humanity, finally "done did" the genepool?
It sounds like the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders is a bit over double that, but as the article notes, that includes "functional" autists whose symptoms may be hardly noticeable to those around them.
Since the rate of autism diagnosis has increased, I'd also like to hear more about the predictive accuracy of some of those statistics. When you read that only 50% of autistic children in the US graduate high school, you have to read that in the context of rapidly increasing diagnosis. Does that mean that the kids that are currently being diagnosed still have only a 50% chance of graduating?
It doesn't have to be the case that population genetics are the thing driving the change.
It would be more accurate IMO to say that we're getting a better understanding of traits and characteristics of the human mind, some of which we currently have reason to believe are disorders, and are getting better at detecting those traits/characteristics.
From personal experience, I can tell you that there is nothing too beautiful about growing up with a brother who never stopped throwing tantrums like a toddler, whose intelligence never developed beyond about three years old, and who without the right medication won't stop hitting his own forehead and barking like a dog.
Tbh I think there are two kinds of autism. 'Real' autism, like your brother has, or people who cannot speak, etc. This kind seems to be much rarer, but a tragedy for everyone involved. I read an article (linked here on HN but I can't find it anymore) about someone taking care of such an autistic person and it is heartbreaking.
The other kind I would call 'newest fad' autism that people who are a bit socially awkward label themselves with, and pride themselves with their 'beautiful mind' and their intelligence. Bonus points: They don't have to improve themselves and their social skills because it's a mental health thing and out of their control.
The catalogues of mental disorders (like DSM) say a lot about a society.
- incomprehension of and bafflement by social cues and conventions that the rest of us take for granted; this is far more than just being "socially awkward", and was famously described by Temple Grandin as like being "an anthropologist on Mars"
- a heavy reliance on routine, and discomfort or distress when that routine is disrupted
- over-sensitivity to sensory stimulation, which can make things like a trip to the supermarket (strip lighting, PA announcements, crowds, the smell of produce and other people's bodies) hellish.
- social skills
- communication skills
- rigidity (reliance on routine)
That doesn't stop a wide variation in how those manifest in individuals, nor make the diagnosis meaningless.
Hell, even botany is complex. Every Wikipedia article I read on a plant species seems to invariably have a long section talking about various places the plant has been on the taxonomic tree at different points in time and how scientists still aren't sure where to stick it.
It didn't really address djrobstep's post apart from a trite, "Everyone is different," observation, and certainly didn't address the real pain and grief there can be, caring and loving someone with such serious disabilities.
I think removing the Asperger's from the DSM was in many ways a disservice. It was a useful distinction of high level autistics, which is really the group the article is talking about for the most part, to the more seriously effected like djrobstep's brother.
And to finish with a quote of my own:
“In an ideal world the scientist should find a method to prevent the most severe forms of autism but allow the milder forms to survive. After all, the really social people did not invent the first stone spear. It was probably invented by an Aspie who chipped away at rocks while the other people socialized around the campfire. Without autism traits we might still be living in caves.” -- Temple Grandin
Autistic people are still people. They make mistakes. They're not robots. I'm glad we've moved away from blacklisting them, but we're getting to the point of fetishizing them instead. Both directions are still dehumanizing.
People seem to accept stereotypes when they're positive.
There always seems to be this underlying "yeah they are freaks, but you can take advantage of their weird behaviour".
Me personaly I dropped out of High school on my 6th year because I was unable to get past 9th grade English. Never got though collage never got my GED, and not due to a lack of trying. I am now in my 3rd engineering job not in title but in the work I preform. 1st structural engineer, 2nd Mechanical engineer, and now Systems engineer. I am not going to try to clam to be a genius but I do find myself ecelling above some of the engineers who delegate there projects to me.
There are so many fields out there where these people not just the autistic can learn to do just by doing. The only reason they are stuck flipping burgers is because we have this preconception that you can not learn without a certificate form a institution of Higher education.
FYI Sorry For the bad spelling I reviewed this for 30 min, and fixed everything I could find.
But a spelling checker, such as the one built in to Firefox, would have found them all as you typed. Why is it that almost no one uses them?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupertino_effect
Anyway, your point resonated because I know many who struggle to express themselves with confidence but could solve the heck out of most engineering problems. These people are often the most fascinating to hear from, juggling every idea from all angles. Some kind of proof of aptitude is needed that doesn't require ye olde worlde 'academic' approaches.
If someone excels in something, nurture that; don't shut talented people out of their potential because they have deficiencies elsewhere.
http://auticon.de - not affiliated.
Does anyone know where these numbers come from? It's much higher than I would have expected.