>As you read them, just keep in mind that there is no agreed-upon definition of "autism" or "Asberger's Syndrome". (Nor does autism exist on a defined one-dimensional spectrum, contrary to popular belief.) Each individual is wildly different. So "severe autism" in one person might mean that person can't talk. In another it might mean they have seizures. In another it might mean they can hold a conversation but can't tie their shoes. The media tends to gloss over this major issue, and in so doing it wrongly connects many poorly-understood discrete neurological disorders.
This is what I find so weird. I hear people talking about their autistic child or autistic nephew or something as if they are profoundly disabled. But I've worked with sysadmins and with programmers who had autism diagnoses. And sure, some of them were difficult to communicate with, but they were working with me, and usually fairly competent at their jobs, I mean competent enough that it was worth significant effort to figure out how to communicate with them.
That, and I work with a lot of people who are hard to communicate with; while only a few of them have told me that their psychiatrist has diagnosed them with this or that... (I mean, considering the stigmas involved, generally speaking, disclosing your mental health issues to all but those you are closest to is a bad idea.)
so my assumption was that if a few of the people I worked with /had/ told me, well there are bound to be others who just keep it under their hat.
But then, if I encounter an Autism advocate, they seem to think I'm very wrong in think there are a large number of socially disabled but otherwise functional folks with Autism, and that I'm doing autistic folks a disservice by thinking so.
>The upshot is that even though it may be great that this particular individual benefits from Coursera, the vast majority of "autistic" individuals I have come across are not capable of processing anything that might be taught in a college-level course. Coursera cannot help them, although perhaps some more basic technologies might.
I think there is a /lot/ of selection bias here, for both of us. I put a good bit of effort into putting myself in situations where you could reasonably argue that I'm the dumbest guy in the room, and am usually provably the worst programmer in the room, and I'm not involved in caring for the 'profoundly disabled' - so I am choosing what I see.
On the other hand, most Autism advocates spend time with those most profoundly disabled; they need the most help, after all. Someone who mostly has life under control, likely, would keep it between himself/herself and the shrink, so I would imagine that shapes how they see the world, too.
But yeah, I never understood why they used the same word for the guy next to me that can kick my ass at everything but talking, and the kid who can't talk at all.
This happens for lots of syndromes, though. CP can describe someone with a slight limp, if that, or folks with little bodily control who need around-the-clock care and can't communicate verbally. Dyslexia covers everything from fully-compensating children who have difficulty spelling to people who can neither read nor write, regardless of interventions. MS may cause occasional tremors or be utterly debilitating.
Autism is similar. It may be an neurological trait that the individual compensates for or an utterly debilitating condition. It doesn't mean they are different conditions if the only difference is the severity of the symptoms.
Yeah; I'm not a shrink. I'm going off what people tell me that they've been diagnosed with, like by a psychiatrist. diagnosing people myself is, at best, quite rude.
This is what I find so weird. I hear people talking about their autistic child or autistic nephew or something as if they are profoundly disabled. But I've worked with sysadmins and with programmers who had autism diagnoses. And sure, some of them were difficult to communicate with, but they were working with me, and usually fairly competent at their jobs, I mean competent enough that it was worth significant effort to figure out how to communicate with them.
That, and I work with a lot of people who are hard to communicate with; while only a few of them have told me that their psychiatrist has diagnosed them with this or that... (I mean, considering the stigmas involved, generally speaking, disclosing your mental health issues to all but those you are closest to is a bad idea.)
so my assumption was that if a few of the people I worked with /had/ told me, well there are bound to be others who just keep it under their hat.
But then, if I encounter an Autism advocate, they seem to think I'm very wrong in think there are a large number of socially disabled but otherwise functional folks with Autism, and that I'm doing autistic folks a disservice by thinking so.
>The upshot is that even though it may be great that this particular individual benefits from Coursera, the vast majority of "autistic" individuals I have come across are not capable of processing anything that might be taught in a college-level course. Coursera cannot help them, although perhaps some more basic technologies might.
I think there is a /lot/ of selection bias here, for both of us. I put a good bit of effort into putting myself in situations where you could reasonably argue that I'm the dumbest guy in the room, and am usually provably the worst programmer in the room, and I'm not involved in caring for the 'profoundly disabled' - so I am choosing what I see.
On the other hand, most Autism advocates spend time with those most profoundly disabled; they need the most help, after all. Someone who mostly has life under control, likely, would keep it between himself/herself and the shrink, so I would imagine that shapes how they see the world, too.
But yeah, I never understood why they used the same word for the guy next to me that can kick my ass at everything but talking, and the kid who can't talk at all.