Ever heard of the DHMO hoax? Well, people actually fall for it. College students who have taken biology (and probably chemistry, given that most bio is molecular bio nowadays) FALL FOR IT. So before you say about anything, "Oh, no one is that gullible," remember DHMO. Yes, we are that gullible. That's why we have things like anti-vaccination people suggesting that chelation is a good way to detox from a vaccine, and it's why people still think vaccines cause autism (They don't, BTW), and it's why people try things like bleach enemas to cure autism. It's why urban legends refuse to die. It's probably a big piece of why most privileges work the way they do. People are naturally inclined to believe what they are told. It's just how the world is. I won't claim that I never fall for annything, because that's just not true. But I will point out that I am not scared of all chemicals because I am aware that water is a chemical too. I'm scared of ones that could kill me in doses that science says could kill me. (Yes, that means that the idea of drinking two gallons of distilled water scares me, or it would if I rated it as likely to happen. I also understand statistics reasonably well, and know that causation and correlation are different things.)
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
Executive functioning? What's that?
Apparently it is something I have trouble with. I know X needs to get done, and that Y needs to get done, and once I get started, I'm totally good. But remembering that it needs doing at a time when I can do it, actually starting, managing my time properly? Not so much. I have bursts of "DO ALL THE THINGS" time, like right now seems to be, and I have times when if it doesn't relate to an autistic obsession of mine, it's probably not getting done, and even if it is, I might not have it together enough to remember. The physical aspect is a non-issue. I'm actually a slightly- faster than average typist, which means that I can do most computer related stuff slightly faster than most, and much faster once you take into account the fact that I actually know how computers work. I have pretty good stamina. Really, I am extremely close to being autistic and NOTHING ELSE. (I say close because I've got some allergies, mild eczema, sensory weirdness, and apparently executive functioning issues. The sensory weirdness and the executive functioning seems to be sufficiently common that I'm not sure they really count as additional issues, though. Oh, and flat feet, plus my fine motor skills are cruddy at speed and my not walking into walls skills are crud, period. Still, not much of a much.) Essentially, there is nothing besides executive functioning failure or possibly depression that would have the effect I'm talking about, and depressed I am not. So logically, it must be executive dysfunction. Woooo knowing what the difficulty is. Now to cobble together the executive functioning to SOLVE it. Except.... whoops. That woule be the executive functioning I lack, wouldn't it?
Friday, August 3, 2012
The way I pass
Because I do pass. I don't pass the same way that many people try to teach their kids to pass, by suppressing all stimming, forcing them to actually look people in the eye, and making them act neurotypical. I don't do that. I frankly don't think I could do a very good job at any of them. I can fake eye contact well enough that people can't tell the difference, and I can stim in less obvious ways. That's about it.
So here's what I actually do:
I get done what I need to get done, and I function, and I don't mention that I'm autistic. Interestingly enough, people tend not to put the pieces together, with the occasional exception when I say the words "sensory weirdness" or "sensory issues," or if the person has Autdar. But people who have good Autdar tend to be the ones where it's OK if they know.
This works because people don't know much about the autism spectrum. They often think that being on the spectrum means you can't really do anything, and that's not true. They often think that autistic people who are really good at something are only good at the one thing, and are usually savants. Also not true. People think of autism as applying to children (kids grow up!) and they think about autism as a boy thing. Between all those, no matter how many autistic traits I show, people tend not to figure it out.
Example: I am doing nanotechnology research. Stuff my adviser has seen:
Yet he has no clue. In fact, if I told him, he'd probably be surprised, because people don't just figure this stuff out, apparently. That's how I pass. I act as autistic as I want, and let people fail to put the pieces together.So here's what I actually do:
I get done what I need to get done, and I function, and I don't mention that I'm autistic. Interestingly enough, people tend not to put the pieces together, with the occasional exception when I say the words "sensory weirdness" or "sensory issues," or if the person has Autdar. But people who have good Autdar tend to be the ones where it's OK if they know.
This works because people don't know much about the autism spectrum. They often think that being on the spectrum means you can't really do anything, and that's not true. They often think that autistic people who are really good at something are only good at the one thing, and are usually savants. Also not true. People think of autism as applying to children (kids grow up!) and they think about autism as a boy thing. Between all those, no matter how many autistic traits I show, people tend not to figure it out.
Example: I am doing nanotechnology research. Stuff my adviser has seen:
- Me not even faking eye contact.
- Me flapping. A lot.
- Me otherwise stimming.
- Me completely missing sarcasm and jokes.
- Me SAYING that I don't get sarcasm and can't tell when people are joking.
- Me not understanding the concept of saving up hours from one week and applying them to the next as SOMETHING YOU COULD DO because that's not what we're supposed to do in the RULES.
- Me showing all the classic signs of sensory overload when the department played soccer on the quad and I spent about a minute playing offense.
- Me actually mentioning a sensory issue.
- Me perseverating.
- Me taking apart some of the purely mechanical things to see how they work.
- Low-level echolalic tendencies (didn't interfere with communication or anything, but noticeable.)
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Some things really are social constructs.
Like race. Really.
Between different races, there are some very small genetic differences. Like skin color, hair color, hair texture, eye colors, sometimes average heights, that tendency for sickle-cell anemia to be way more common in groups from areas where malaria is prevalent. That much is genetics.
What we do with it? Not so much.
None of the tiny genetic differences we've found explain race dynamics. How would darker or lighter skin make you inherently smarter or stronger or better educated or anything besides better adapted to an area that gets more or less sun when sun is the way you get Vitamin D? Simple: It doesn't.
Since race dynamics are clearly not based in science, it's time to look elsewhere.
The idea that it is a social/economic/political thing holds up.
Europeans (white people) went to other areas, like Africa, and for religious reasons, felt that they were superior and needed to civilize the people there. That would be social. They came to the conclusion that having a different religion and a different way of life made people inherently less. That would also be social. They came up with systems which were highly oppressive under the guise of civilizing/helping these "savages," but which mostly seemed like a way to exploit these people. That would be economics saying it's good for them, politics and social systems backing it up. They deprived people of education and then turned around and called them too stupid to learn. That's social and political there. They made sure people were too poor to go to school. That's social and economic. Bit by bit- each thing is social, economic, political, or a combination.
So yes, the race dynamics of today are a social construct. That doesn't make the effects any less real. Oppressions are nearly always social constructs, and they're ALL REAL. Calling it a social construct is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. It's the same as saying "There is no scientific reason that it needs to be this way," so far as I can tell. And maybe it's a hint that it SHOULDN'T be that way.
Between different races, there are some very small genetic differences. Like skin color, hair color, hair texture, eye colors, sometimes average heights, that tendency for sickle-cell anemia to be way more common in groups from areas where malaria is prevalent. That much is genetics.
What we do with it? Not so much.
None of the tiny genetic differences we've found explain race dynamics. How would darker or lighter skin make you inherently smarter or stronger or better educated or anything besides better adapted to an area that gets more or less sun when sun is the way you get Vitamin D? Simple: It doesn't.
Since race dynamics are clearly not based in science, it's time to look elsewhere.
The idea that it is a social/economic/political thing holds up.
Europeans (white people) went to other areas, like Africa, and for religious reasons, felt that they were superior and needed to civilize the people there. That would be social. They came to the conclusion that having a different religion and a different way of life made people inherently less. That would also be social. They came up with systems which were highly oppressive under the guise of civilizing/helping these "savages," but which mostly seemed like a way to exploit these people. That would be economics saying it's good for them, politics and social systems backing it up. They deprived people of education and then turned around and called them too stupid to learn. That's social and political there. They made sure people were too poor to go to school. That's social and economic. Bit by bit- each thing is social, economic, political, or a combination.
So yes, the race dynamics of today are a social construct. That doesn't make the effects any less real. Oppressions are nearly always social constructs, and they're ALL REAL. Calling it a social construct is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. It's the same as saying "There is no scientific reason that it needs to be this way," so far as I can tell. And maybe it's a hint that it SHOULDN'T be that way.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Don't Look Past My Autism
Don't. Revel in it. I do. Because it's kind of the way my entire
brain is wired. If you consider the sensory processing issues to not
actually be separate, then you can toss in the rest of my nervous system
to boot.
Don't look past the way my brain is wired, the way I think, the person I am inside. What's left if you do? A pretty body, maybe. Well, more like an athletic healthy one for me. Or maybe it's a body that's ALSO disabled. Who knows. The point is, if you take away the brain, which is, you know, autistic, there aren't too many traits left that I really want to be the reasons people like me.
So don't look past the autism. Realize that those parts of my personality that you like? Those are part of the way my mind works too, which means they are part of my AUTISTIC brain, and you could argue that they are part of the autism too.
When you say that I'm really cool when you look past the autism, you're either talking about traits that I REALLY, REALLY do NOT want to be the reason you think I'm cool, or you're looking past one set of traits you assume to be autism related to find another set of traits that are probably also autism related but that you happen to like.
And of course, there's that whole idea that needing to look past a disability implies that it is a bad thing or a less human thing. That's really ableist. It's not cool. So even if you think looking past a disability is a good thing, no. It's not. Looking at the whole person, including but not limited to the disability, is a good thing. There's a difference.
BTW, I stuck this over on the Autistic Hodgepodge page too. Because that one post saying ``Hi!" felt kinda lonely. Anyone want to add something to it? Doesn't need to be about autism or anything, just needs to be written by someone autistic. Or want to get involved in putting together such a hodgepodge volume, in any way, like maybe submitting stuff?
Don't look past the way my brain is wired, the way I think, the person I am inside. What's left if you do? A pretty body, maybe. Well, more like an athletic healthy one for me. Or maybe it's a body that's ALSO disabled. Who knows. The point is, if you take away the brain, which is, you know, autistic, there aren't too many traits left that I really want to be the reasons people like me.
So don't look past the autism. Realize that those parts of my personality that you like? Those are part of the way my mind works too, which means they are part of my AUTISTIC brain, and you could argue that they are part of the autism too.
When you say that I'm really cool when you look past the autism, you're either talking about traits that I REALLY, REALLY do NOT want to be the reason you think I'm cool, or you're looking past one set of traits you assume to be autism related to find another set of traits that are probably also autism related but that you happen to like.
And of course, there's that whole idea that needing to look past a disability implies that it is a bad thing or a less human thing. That's really ableist. It's not cool. So even if you think looking past a disability is a good thing, no. It's not. Looking at the whole person, including but not limited to the disability, is a good thing. There's a difference.
BTW, I stuck this over on the Autistic Hodgepodge page too. Because that one post saying ``Hi!" felt kinda lonely. Anyone want to add something to it? Doesn't need to be about autism or anything, just needs to be written by someone autistic. Or want to get involved in putting together such a hodgepodge volume, in any way, like maybe submitting stuff?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)