Page 2 of 6 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

02 Jan 2012, 12:48 pm

ruveyn wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
just another jejune thought, but- what kind of world would it be, if the bulk of the cops were as highly intelligent as the bulk of the doctors and lawyers?


More crimes would be solved.

ruveyn


Or would they over think them :wink: ?

OK, mostly kidding on that.

The truth is, in my opinion, that intelligence is but one factor in how a person processes and interprets data, and being smart is far from a guarantee that a person has the practical instincts required for certain jobs. Law enforcement requires, in my opinion, solid social intelligence, about how a broad range of types of personalities and neurologies act and why. I think it also requires a strong social memory, so that you carry a solid data base of people, places, and instances in your mind. None of that gets measured in an IQ test.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Abgal64
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

02 Jan 2012, 4:30 pm

Goodness, this is ridiculous! It is appalling that one can be too intelligent to be in law enforcement; what is next, barring ethicists from becoming judges for having knowledge that will get in the way of their handling the legal status quo?!


_________________
Learn the patterns of the past; consider what is not now; help what is not the past; plan for the future.
-Myself


Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

03 Jan 2012, 4:58 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
just another jejune thought, but- what kind of world would it be, if the bulk of the cops were as highly intelligent as the bulk of the doctors and lawyers?


More crimes would be solved.

ruveyn


Or would they over think them :wink: ?

OK, mostly kidding on that.

The truth is, in my opinion, that intelligence is but one factor in how a person processes and interprets data, and being smart is far from a guarantee that a person has the practical instincts required for certain jobs. Law enforcement requires, in my opinion, solid social intelligence, about how a broad range of types of personalities and neurologies act and why. I think it also requires a strong social memory, so that you carry a solid data base of people, places, and instances in your mind. None of that gets measured in an IQ test.



Hi DW_a_mom,

Do you think the fictional Detective Columbo has counterparts in reality?

The ADA also prohibits disparate impact that illegally discriminates. I also sued the FDIC, OPM, MSPB, and D.O.Treasury(IRS) over disparate impact from oral examinations.

Some of the defenses put forth by the government included "emotional intelligence" and "social intelligence", which means that the government takes it as OK to discriminate against people with autism/Aspergers across the entire range of jobs.

Emotional Intelligence & Social Intelligence have unacceptably low levels of statistical validity and objectivity to be used as ranking scales for selection of job applicants for employment.

To keep it short & simple, when the examinations included everything but oral performances, I scored more than 2 standard deviations above the median (generally in the top 3% of all job applicants), but with oral examinations including all job & non-job aspects, I scored in the bottom 3% of all job applicants. With oral examinations involving formal aspects of job performances, I remain in the top 3% most often. Both epilepsy and Aspergers impact my oral performances on exams (epilepsy's effect is more sporadic and more intense, while Aspergers is more constant & limited to more adversely impacted informal social aspects).

Once my impairments become known, adverse treatment from discrimination is intense. The effect of adverse impact/treatment became explicitly apparent when I applied for two different jobs that included much the same job performances. Both had extensive written exams of multiple choice questions and essay questions in application packets.

I kept my impairments unkown in the written exams with the FDIC, and I scored in the top 3%.

I revealed my impairments to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and since the general essay questions were the same as with the FDIC, I submitted the same written essay responses, but these responses were scored with the OCC in the bottom 3% and were held disqualifying. (one of my univ. professors wanted the results too, as experiments also revealed even the gender of names on such exams had significant disparate impact and adverse treatments).

This bunch was under the Rehabilitation Act, and before the ADA became law, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a similar case that statistical evidence in compliance with the Civil Rights Act regarding evidence of discrimination did not establish any similar acceptable standards under the Rehab Act. Later, the office of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor denied the writ of certiorari over the legal issue of whether if the fact of my being disabled, by the Social Security Administrations' determination of my being disabled, did, or did not, establish that I was a handicapped person under the ADA/Rehab Act's definition of being handicapped. The Courts ruled that it did not, and also that my non-handicap was so severe as to preclude Rehab services with the State of California.

Tadzio

More aspects with overlapping cases are at: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4195374.html#4195374

"Yossarian, they can prepare as many official reports as they want and choose whichever ones they need on any occasion. Didn't you know that?" "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller (S&S Classic Ed edition (October 5, 1999)), page 406.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

03 Jan 2012, 3:19 pm

First and foremost, not all discrimination is illegal discrimination.

When I interview candidates for a job, and I pick one over the others, I have engaged in a discriminatory act. The issue is not discrimination, but rather the motives for that discrimination, and whether the motive is prohibited.

Retention is a huge challenge in many workplaces. High employee turnover is not a problem for an employer who doesn't have to invest a great deal of time in orientation and training for a new employee--but it is a significant challenge for employers who make significant investments in their workforce. When such an employer is confronted by a retention challenge, then it is perfectly responsible to investigate the causes and take steps to mitigate those.


_________________
--James


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

03 Jan 2012, 4:26 pm

Tadzio wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
just another jejune thought, but- what kind of world would it be, if the bulk of the cops were as highly intelligent as the bulk of the doctors and lawyers?


More crimes would be solved.

ruveyn


Or would they over think them :wink: ?

OK, mostly kidding on that.

The truth is, in my opinion, that intelligence is but one factor in how a person processes and interprets data, and being smart is far from a guarantee that a person has the practical instincts required for certain jobs. Law enforcement requires, in my opinion, solid social intelligence, about how a broad range of types of personalities and neurologies act and why. I think it also requires a strong social memory, so that you carry a solid data base of people, places, and instances in your mind. None of that gets measured in an IQ test.



Hi DW_a_mom,

Do you think the fictional Detective Columbo has counterparts in reality?

The ADA also prohibits disparate impact that illegally discriminates. I also sued the FDIC, OPM, MSPB, and D.O.Treasury(IRS) over disparate impact from oral examinations.

Some of the defenses put forth by the government included "emotional intelligence" and "social intelligence", which means that the government takes it as OK to discriminate against people with autism/Aspergers across the entire range of jobs.

Emotional Intelligence & Social Intelligence have unacceptably low levels of statistical validity and objectivity to be used as ranking scales for selection of job applicants for employment.

To keep it short & simple, when the examinations included everything but oral performances, I scored more than 2 standard deviations above the median (generally in the top 3% of all job applicants), but with oral examinations including all job & non-job aspects, I scored in the bottom 3% of all job applicants. With oral examinations involving formal aspects of job performances, I remain in the top 3% most often. Both epilepsy and Aspergers impact my oral performances on exams (epilepsy's effect is more sporadic and more intense, while Aspergers is more constant & limited to more adversely impacted informal social aspects).

Once my impairments become known, adverse treatment from discrimination is intense. The effect of adverse impact/treatment became explicitly apparent when I applied for two different jobs that included much the same job performances. Both had extensive written exams of multiple choice questions and essay questions in application packets.

I kept my impairments unkown in the written exams with the FDIC, and I scored in the top 3%.

I revealed my impairments to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and since the general essay questions were the same as with the FDIC, I submitted the same written essay responses, but these responses were scored with the OCC in the bottom 3% and were held disqualifying. (one of my univ. professors wanted the results too, as experiments also revealed even the gender of names on such exams had significant disparate impact and adverse treatments).

This bunch was under the Rehabilitation Act, and before the ADA became law, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a similar case that statistical evidence in compliance with the Civil Rights Act regarding evidence of discrimination did not establish any similar acceptable standards under the Rehab Act. Later, the office of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor denied the writ of certiorari over the legal issue of whether if the fact of my being disabled, by the Social Security Administrations' determination of my being disabled, did, or did not, establish that I was a handicapped person under the ADA/Rehab Act's definition of being handicapped. The Courts ruled that it did not, and also that my non-handicap was so severe as to preclude Rehab services with the State of California.

Tadzio

More aspects with overlapping cases are at: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4195374.html#4195374

"Yossarian, they can prepare as many official reports as they want and choose whichever ones they need on any occasion. Didn't you know that?" "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller (S&S Classic Ed edition (October 5, 1999)), page 406.


I don't remember much about the fictional Detective Columbo. The character has no bearing on my life, and I haven't watched that show in 40 years. I also have about zero interest in reading the cases you are citing, or nor do I understand what they have to do with my point. I didn't make a legal point, I made a life experience point, and it wasn't related to your lawsuits (I am sorry if you have faced real discrimination, but that alone isn't going to make the cases relevant to me). I am here discussing my opinion, which is based on my cumulative life experience and learning, and if I want to learn more about something you bring up, guess what? I'll ask.

I feel fortunate to have worked for companies still small enough to hire without all that mumbo jumbo testing, which is a weak attempt to measure what cannot, IMHO, be measured, ie how successful one will be in a certain job.

I am also an incredibly good interviewer, able to ask the questions it takes to find the people who will succeed in a position. I've worked for small companies more willing to give less obvious candidates a chance, and I've loved that about my employers. But are you going to sue me if I tell you we're hiring the other guy because he is a better fit? It is a totally subject call because it HAS to be, the whole issue of matching people to positions in our current economy IS mostly subjective.

It isn't discrimination to steer away from people who do not have the right traits to succeed in a position, it is smart business, and better for everyone in the long run. Do you really want to be in a job where the boss gets impatient because your work isn't making him money? Or, in the public sector, because you aren't meeting the goals or keeping taxpayers happy? NO, you don't; it leads to nothing but depression. Problem is, no written or oral test will ever tell you that, unless the job is taking tests.

I avoid jobs that use tests to select among candidates and, given your feelings about them, you probably should, too.

I would be happy, if I had more time, to debate the merits of trying to use human resource people who have never done job A to hire for job A, but I don't have that time. I'll just say I don't think it is very successful policy, even if I do understand why companies do it.

My job has little to do with IQ, and a lot to do with a whole variety of things, most of which are intangible. I've seen people that looked like successes on paper fail, and people that looked like failures on paper succeed. To figure it out, I have to know key parts to their story, and I have to try to get that from a cover letter or in a one hour interview. It is, and will always be, an imperfect process.

We don't give oral exams, we give interviews. There is no passing or failing; there is only figuring out if the person will be happy in this position in this company and be good at it. If it isn't a match, it is in no ones best interest to continue. A good interviewer will see past the epilepsy and AS communication issues, but they probably need you to be upfront about them so that they can specifically look past them. There may be positions where AS or epilepsy disqualify you, just like my hearing loss disqualifies me. Not every different-ability can be successfully accommodated, and that is something I accept as a person who has a disability: potential employers don't owe me a job, they just owe me a fair shot to sell them on my ability to be an asset with the package that I am.

So I think a police department that lets a test tell them someone is overqualified, instead of talking to him and using their instincts, is missing the boat, and missing out on some potentially top notch candidates.

And I think you could spend less time filing lawsuits, and more time making an honest assessment of your strengths and weaknesses, to see where they can add value in the marketplace, so you can be successful selling yourself for the types of positions you might want.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Last edited by DW_a_mom on 03 Jan 2012, 8:08 pm, edited 10 times in total.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

03 Jan 2012, 4:49 pm

Tadzio: how many suits did you file, and how can you pay for them? Discrimination suits are nearly impossible to win, and the lawyers aren't going to work on contingency.



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

03 Jan 2012, 5:34 pm

visagrunt wrote:
First and foremost, not all discrimination is illegal discrimination.

When I interview candidates for a job, and I pick one over the others, I have engaged in a discriminatory act. The issue is not discrimination, but rather the motives for that discrimination, and whether the motive is prohibited.

Retention is a huge challenge in many workplaces. High employee turnover is not a problem for an employer who doesn't have to invest a great deal of time in orientation and training for a new employee--but it is a significant challenge for employers who make significant investments in their workforce. When such an employer is confronted by a retention challenge, then it is perfectly responsible to investigate the causes and take steps to mitigate those.


Hi Visagrunt,

The laws & regulations of the USA have been expanded to include disabled people as protected also from needless disparate impact disability discrimination, much as the Civil Rights Act protects all people from illegal disparate impact discrimination.

This means that disabled people are also protected from prohibited discrimination that includes discrimination that does not have motive, as illegal "motive-less" discrimination inflicts a disparate impact that is statistically evident as being related to the same result as prohibited discrimination with motive.

Disparate Impact:
In US employment law, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on members of a minority group. Under the doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.

The doctrine entails that "A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect." Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question. This is the so-called "business necessity" defense.

Disparate impact contrasts with disparate treatment. A disparate impact is unintentional, whereas a disparate treatment is an intentional decision to treat people differently based on their race or other protected characteristics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_Impact

The newer ADAAA removed some of the Catch-22 technicalities of what degree of disability constituted a significant disability, but this has also resulted in a renewed onlaught of Objectivist objections from prejudiced people that their personal jet-airliner's exhaust shouldn't be prohibited from blowing disabled people out of every crosswalk across the entire USA.

Tadzio



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

03 Jan 2012, 6:41 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
just another jejune thought, but- what kind of world would it be, if the bulk of the cops were as highly intelligent as the bulk of the doctors and lawyers?


More crimes would be solved.

ruveyn


Or would they over think them :wink: ?

OK, mostly kidding on that.

The truth is, in my opinion, that intelligence is but one factor in how a person processes and interprets data, and being smart is far from a guarantee that a person has the practical instincts required for certain jobs. Law enforcement requires, in my opinion, solid social intelligence, about how a broad range of types of personalities and neurologies act and why. I think it also requires a strong social memory, so that you carry a solid data base of people, places, and instances in your mind. None of that gets measured in an IQ test.



Hi DW_a_mom,

Do you think the fictional Detective Columbo has counterparts in reality?

The ADA also prohibits disparate impact that illegally discriminates. I also sued the FDIC, OPM, MSPB, and D.O.Treasury(IRS) over disparate impact from oral examinations.

Some of the defenses put forth by the government included "emotional intelligence" and "social intelligence", which means that the government takes it as OK to discriminate against people with autism/Aspergers across the entire range of jobs.

Emotional Intelligence & Social Intelligence have unacceptably low levels of statistical validity and objectivity to be used as ranking scales for selection of job applicants for employment.

To keep it short & simple, when the examinations included everything but oral performances, I scored more than 2 standard deviations above the median (generally in the top 3% of all job applicants), but with oral examinations including all job & non-job aspects, I scored in the bottom 3% of all job applicants. With oral examinations involving formal aspects of job performances, I remain in the top 3% most often. Both epilepsy and Aspergers impact my oral performances on exams (epilepsy's effect is more sporadic and more intense, while Aspergers is more constant & limited to more adversely impacted informal social aspects).

Once my impairments become known, adverse treatment from discrimination is intense. The effect of adverse impact/treatment became explicitly apparent when I applied for two different jobs that included much the same job performances. Both had extensive written exams of multiple choice questions and essay questions in application packets.

I kept my impairments unkown in the written exams with the FDIC, and I scored in the top 3%.

I revealed my impairments to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and since the general essay questions were the same as with the FDIC, I submitted the same written essay responses, but these responses were scored with the OCC in the bottom 3% and were held disqualifying. (one of my univ. professors wanted the results too, as experiments also revealed even the gender of names on such exams had significant disparate impact and adverse treatments).

This bunch was under the Rehabilitation Act, and before the ADA became law, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a similar case that statistical evidence in compliance with the Civil Rights Act regarding evidence of discrimination did not establish any similar acceptable standards under the Rehab Act. Later, the office of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor denied the writ of certiorari over the legal issue of whether if the fact of my being disabled, by the Social Security Administrations' determination of my being disabled, did, or did not, establish that I was a handicapped person under the ADA/Rehab Act's definition of being handicapped. The Courts ruled that it did not, and also that my non-handicap was so severe as to preclude Rehab services with the State of California.

Tadzio

More aspects with overlapping cases are at: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4195374.html#4195374

"Yossarian, they can prepare as many official reports as they want and choose whichever ones they need on any occasion. Didn't you know that?" "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller (S&S Classic Ed edition (October 5, 1999)), page 406.


I don't remember much about the fictional Detective Columbo. The character has no bearing on my life, and I haven't watched that show in 40 years. I also have about zero interest in reading the cases you are citing, or nor do I understand what they have to do with my point. I didn't make a legal point, I made a life experience point, and it wasn't related to your lawsuits (I am sorry if you have faced real discrimination, but that alone isn't going to make the cases relevant to me). I am here discussing my opinion, which is based on my cumulative life experience and learning, and if I want to learn more about something you bring up, guess what? I'll ask.

I feel fortunate to have worked for companies still small enough to hire without all that mumbo jumbo testing, which is a weak attempt to measure what cannot, IMHO, be measured, ie how successful one will be in a certain job.

I am also an incredibly good interviewer, able to ask the questions it takes to find the people who will succeed in a position. I've worked for small companies more willing to give less obvious candidates a chance, and I've loved that about my employers. But are you doing to sue me if I tell you we're hiring the other guy because he is a better fit? It is a totally subject call because it HAS to be, the whole issue of matching people to positions is our current economy IS mostly subjective.

It isn't discrimination to steer away from people who do not have the right traits to succeed in a position, it is smart businesses, and better for everyone in the long run. Do you really want to be in a job where the boss gets impatient because your work isn't making him money? Or, in the public sector, because you aren't meeting the goals or keeping taxpayers happy? NO, you don't; it leads to nothing but depression. Problem is, no written or oral test will ever tell you that, unless the job is taking tests.

I avoid jobs that use tests to select among candidates and, given your feelings about them, you probably should, too.

I would be happy, if I had more time, to debate the merits of trying to use human resource people who have never done job A to hire for job A, but I don't have that time. I'll just say I don't think it is very successful policy, even if I do understand why companies do it.

My job has little to do with IQ, and a lot to do with a whole variety of things, most of which are intangible. I've seen people that looked like successes on paper fail, and people that looked like failures on paper succeed. To figure it out, I have to know key parts to their story, and I have to try to get that from a cover letter or in a one hour interview. It is, and will always be, an imperfect process.

We don't give oral exams, we give interviews. There is no passing or failing; there is only figuring out if the person will be happy in this position in this company and be good at it. If it isn't a match, it is in no ones best interest to continue. A good interviewer will see past the epilepsy and AS communication issues, but they probably need you to be upfront about them so that they can specifically look past them. There may be positions where AS or epilepsy disqualify you, just like my hearing loss disqualifies me. Not every different-ability can be successfully accommodated, and that is something I accept as a person who has a disability: potential employers don't owe me a job, they just owe me a fair shot to sell them on my ability to be an asset with the package that I am.

So I think a police department that lets a test tell them someone is overqualified, instead of talking to him and using their instincts, is missing the boat, and missing out on some potentially top notch candidates.

And I think you could spend less time filing lawsuits, and more time making an honest assessment of your strengths and weaknesses, to see where they can add value in the marketplace, so you can be successful selling yourself for the types of positions you might want.


Hi DW_a_mom,

Which-ever earlier edit I'm responding to,.....

This website is about Autism Spectrum Disorders, and ALL the entanglements involved. Your presence at this website implies that you will be delivered more cumulative life experiences and learning regarding ASD whether you so wish it or not, unless your Aladdin's Lamp works much better than mine, or you have a much better material fate than mine. Sure, Casper the Friendly Ghost doesn't subscribe to reality, so let's dream on.

I wish your response were a bit more concise, as it would make a great example of some of what I have encountered seeking employment everywhere with jobs doing just about anything in the Private Sector (the Government keeps some of their own incriminating records). It is also a near perfect example of prejudicial disparate impact discrimination, as the prejudice is so ingrained as to be apparently invisible to the victim.

Don't ask for reasonable accommodation, well it's your own fault for not asking.

Just ask for reasonable accommodation, and be ready to be referred elsewhere, but by all means, get out of the way of the "valuable" people, and get lost.

Thank you for re-summarizing my former conclusion: "The 'new' ADAAAA is not retro-active, so tough-sh*t for me."

Tadzio



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

03 Jan 2012, 8:52 pm

Tadzio wrote:
Hi DW_a_mom,

Which-ever earlier edit I'm responding to,.....

This website is about Autism Spectrum Disorders, and ALL the entanglements involved. Your presence at this website implies that you will be delivered more cumulative life experiences and learning regarding ASD whether you so wish it or not, unless your Aladdin's Lamp works much better than mine, or you have a much better material fate than mine. Sure, Casper the Friendly Ghost doesn't subscribe to reality, so let's dream on.

I wish your response were a bit more concise, as it would make a great example of some of what I have encountered seeking employment everywhere with jobs doing just about anything in the Private Sector (the Government keeps some of their own incriminating records). It is also a near perfect example of prejudicial disparate impact discrimination, as the prejudice is so ingrained as to be apparently invisible to the victim.

Don't ask for reasonable accommodation, well it's your own fault for not asking.

Just ask for reasonable accommodation, and be ready to be referred elsewhere, but by all means, get out of the way of the "valuable" people, and get lost.

Thank you for re-summarizing my former conclusion: "The 'new' ADAAAA is not retro-active, so tough-sh*t for me."

Tadzio


I call BS. It can be a lot easier to engage in "whoa is me" victim talk and lawsuits than figure out how to make a real difference ... and I have actually made a difference on some things. People in the real world listen to me not because I tell them they should and ramble on about rights and cite court cases, but because I can tell them why it is in either their or societies best interest to do so. Everything is an equation, a negotiation, and while there are groups that are so suppressed by society that they need the law and government to defend them, that isn't true at this point in time for everyone with an ASD. There are huge educational issues with ASD's, where schools fail kids miserably, which we address frequently on the parenting board here, and there is a problem in some workplaces mostly, I believe, due to a lack of simple information on the condition but, overall, it isn't anything like being black in the south in the 1950's. For most people in most places, anyway; I know experiences vary. I do appreciate that you may have experienced real discrimination, but you are also lying in beds, so to speak, of your own making, in my opinion, because I get the impression that you don't want to understand or adapt to the needs of those who offer jobs. I get it that bridging that gap probably isn't natural for you, and you may not have had anyone in your life to teach you how to do it (I didn't, either, but I scrambled the minute I realized it), but that lack of understanding is probably a much bigger part of your problem than your disabilities.

I grew up with a father who said I had to learn to type so I could always get a job as a secretary; he had no concept that women could ever do more than that; and he wasn't willing to pay for my college since, while he wanted me educated, he figured I'd never use it, as no man in his right mind would let his wife work. And yet I have had a solid career in a professional field that used to be mostly male dominated. Because I fought for myself. And I have done the same with my son as he navigates an educational system that would have happily ignored his needs. And for my ASD husband as he faces job and life challenges, even though that I have to do only as a back seat driver.

So don't tell me I don't know how to or am not willing to fight, but do understand that I've learned to pick my battles very, very carefully, because that is the key to winning them.

Sure, there are times I may be too willing to accept some things I shouldn't, but either I make that choice consciously, or it just isn't important enough for me to dig further. And, well, I prefer to live a little naive and happy over living cynical and unhappy. But when it comes to business: I understand business. My career involves advising businesses, and I know what it takes and I know what they need.

So I'll repeat: what do you offer to the marketplace? Where could you add value and how would you add value?

If there is no "yes" answer to that, then no one has discriminated in not hiring you.

And, for the record, I am liberal, so I accept that some people add value to the world without working a job, etc, and I have no problem supporting them with my tax or donation dollars. But I would still assume that you would focus on how you contribute, instead of what is owed to you. And the later, THAT is something I haven't heard even once in this conversation. Maybe I've missed it.

Sorry for being snippy, but I have little patience for the kind of attitude I feel you are showing here because in my life experience it gets you nowhere in this world, doesn't make much permanent change, and doesn't even get people to stand up and take notice, so the faster people drop it, the better chance they have at getting where they want to go.

I think you are yearning for something to do with your intelligence, something effective, and you've mentioned what I read as frustration at not getting assistance with that. There are members here that could help, who know how they did it for themselves, but transferring that will require you to listen.

There are employers out there willing to take risks. One place I consult with hired a young man that I am sure has Aspergers because his mom, a friend of the owner, asked them to. I believe the guy was trained as an engineer, but unable to find a job because of interview skills. And this firm doesn't do engineering, it does accounting. And so. The firm tried him out in different positions, discovered he was smart and fast, and trained him into a career that he has done incredibly well at. He took advice and instruction the owner gave him and made something from it. He figured out how he could add value to the business; he figured out what that concept meant. Once he got that, he could do well in interviews elsewhere; that was all he needed.

Apologies for not being concise, but I'm time pressed and, well, making something of an emotional appeal, I think.

Apologies for any typos; I'm not proofing myself well lately.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Last edited by DW_a_mom on 03 Jan 2012, 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

03 Jan 2012, 10:24 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
Hi DW_a_mom,

Which-ever earlier edit I'm responding to,.....

This website is about Autism Spectrum Disorders, and ALL the entanglements involved. Your presence at this website implies that you will be delivered more cumulative life experiences and learning regarding ASD whether you so wish it or not, unless your Aladdin's Lamp works much better than mine, or you have a much better material fate than mine. Sure, Casper the Friendly Ghost doesn't subscribe to reality, so let's dream on.

I wish your response were a bit more concise, as it would make a great example of some of what I have encountered seeking employment everywhere with jobs doing just about anything in the Private Sector (the Government keeps some of their own incriminating records). It is also a near perfect example of prejudicial disparate impact discrimination, as the prejudice is so ingrained as to be apparently invisible to the victim.

Don't ask for reasonable accommodation, well it's your own fault for not asking.

Just ask for reasonable accommodation, and be ready to be referred elsewhere, but by all means, get out of the way of the "valuable" people, and get lost.

Thank you for re-summarizing my former conclusion: "The 'new' ADAAAA is not retro-active, so tough-sh*t for me."

Tadzio


I call BS. It can be a lot easier to engage in "whoa is me" victim talk and lawsuits than figure out how to make a real difference ... and I have actually made a difference on some things. People in the real world listen to me not because I tell them they should and ramble on about rights and cite court cases, but because I can tell them why it is in either their or societies best interest to do so. Everything is an equation, a negotiation, and while there groups that are so suppressed by society that they need the law and government to defend them, that isn't true at this point in time for everyone with an ASD. There are huge educational issues with ASD's, where schools fail kids miserably, which we address frequently on the parenting board here, and there is a problem in some workplaces mostly, I believe, due to a lack of simple information on the condition but, overall, it isn't anything like being black in the south in the 1950's. For most people in most places, anyway; I know experiences vary. I do appreciate that you may have experienced real discrimination, but you are also lying in beds, so to speak, of your own making, in my opinion, because I get the impression that you don't want to understand or adapt to the needs of those who offer jobs. I get it that bridging that gap probably isn't natural for you, and you may not have had anyone in your life to teach you how to do it (I didn't, either, but I scrambled the minute I realized it), but that lack of understanding is probably a much bigger part of your problem than your disabilities.

I grew up with a father who said I had to learn to type so I could always get a job as a secretary; he had no concept that women could ever do more than that; and he wasn't willing to pay for my college since, while he wanted me educated, he figured I'd never use it, as no man in his right mind would let his wife work. And yet I have had a solid career in a professional field that used to be mostly male dominated. Because I fought for myself. And I have done the same with my son as he navigates an educational system that would have happily ignored his needs. And for my ASD husband as he faces job and life challenges, even though that I have to do only as a back seat driver.

So don't tell me I don't know how to or am not willing to fight, but do understand that I've learned to pick my battles very, very carefully, because that is the key to winning them.

Sure, there are times I may be too willing to accept some things I shouldn't, but either I make that choice consciously, or it just isn't important enough for me to dig further. And, well, I prefer to live a little naive and happy over living cynical and unhappy. But when it comes to business: I understand business. My career involves advising businesses, and I know what it takes and I know what they need.

So I'll repeat: what do you offer to the marketplace? Where could you add value and how would you add value?

If there is no "yes" answer to that, then no one has discriminated in not hiring you.

And, for the record, I am liberal, so I accept that some people add value to the world without working a job, etc, and I have no problem supporting them with my tax or donation dollars. But I would still assume that you would focus on how you contribute, instead of what is owed to you. And the later, THAT is something I haven't heard even once in this conversation. Maybe I've missed it.

Sorry for being snippy, but I have little patience for the kind of attitude I feel you are showing here because in my life experience it gets you nowhere in this world, doesn't make much permanent change, and doesn't even get people to stand up and take notice, so the faster people drop it, the better chance they have at getting where they want to go.

I think you are yearning for something to do with your intelligence, something effective, and you've mentioned what I read as frustration at not getting assistance with that. There are members here that could help, who know how they did it for themselves, but transferring that will require you to listen.

There are employers out there willing to take risks. One place I consult with hired a young man that I am sure has Aspergers because his mom, a friend of the owner, asked them to. I believe the guy was trained as an engineer, but unable to find a job because of interview skills. And this firm doesn't do engineering, it does accounting. And so. The firm tried him out in different positions, discovered he was smart and fast, and trained him into a career that he has done incredibly well at. He took advice and instruction the owner gave him and made something from it. He figured out how he could add value to the business; he figured out what that concept meant. Once he got that, he could do well in interviews elsewhere; that was all he needed.

Apologies for not being concise, but I'm time pressed and, well, making something of an emotional appeal, I think.

Apologies for any typos; I'm not proofing myself well lately.


Hi DW_a_mom,

I'm trying to make meaningful response to pandabear right now, and I will try to edit this response shortly,
which will probably use much of the logic of Clarence Thomas, as in one article, he was cited as asserting affirmative action has an effect on Liberals as that I regard as much as the effect I have just encountered from you, as my Asperger's & Epilepsy has made you regard my outstanding success in many fields as regarded total failures that require begging and brown-nosing on my part for your self-righteous actualization of a super-ego trip.

Tadzio
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/ ... nimgC.html



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

03 Jan 2012, 11:14 pm

Tadzio wrote:

Hi DW_a_mom,

I'm trying to make meaningful response to pandabear right now, and I will try to edit this response shortly,
which will probably use much of the logic of Clarence Thomas, as in one article, he was cited as asserting affirmative action has an effect on Liberals as that I regard as much as the effect I have just encountered from you, as my Asperger's & Epilepsy has made you regard my outstanding success in many fields as regarded total failures that require begging and brown-nosing on my part for your self-righteous actualization of a super-ego trip.

Tadzio
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/ ... nimgC.html


Read your posts in this thread and then note that I only know you from this thread. Where, until now, have you mentioned any successes? All I read was lawsuits and how no one gives you a fair shake.

If you've been successful, why are you carrying that around?

I assumed what I assumed because I have no knowledge of you outside of posts in this thread, and not because of your AS. We have highly successful members on Wrong Planet, so the AS by itself means nothing, which was my point, was it not?

You spoke as someone who feels thwarted by life, in need of a little direction, and ready to chalk every difference up to discrimination instead of just unique individuals doing what unique individuals do. In this thread. If that is not you, my sincere apologies.

There aren't many members here I would speak the same way to for the simple fact that they haven't presented that way to me.

This has nothing to do with AS. I am an equal opportunity lecturer, I promise, just read some of my responses to certain NT parents dropping in on our parenting board. Or ask Dox; we've posted together off and on for a while.

So what you think has been proved absolutely has not been. The miscommunication is the fault of how who I am is interacting with who you are. Absolutely nothing to do with AS. I've just misread you and your intentions. Either because your didn't post clearly, or because I didn't read carefully, or because we just don't click. Which is something that happens between well intended and open minded people all the time, every single day, no big picture underlying issue involved.

I'm happy to apologize for misreading you, but am wondering if you are willing to do the same.

If others think I've posted the way you've read me, I'd like to know, because then I'll know I misspoke.

Please don't bother responding to my earlier post; I believe it will be a waste of both of our time.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Last edited by DW_a_mom on 04 Jan 2012, 11:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

04 Jan 2012, 4:43 am

pandabear wrote:
Tadzio: how many suits did you file, and how can you pay for them? Discrimination suits are nearly impossible to win, and the lawyers aren't going to work on contingency.


Hi pandabear,

My first lawyer took my case on contingency, when my back-wages award would have been around $20,000. This was with my initial case against the FDIC, and with the rules in the federal personnel manual, it was a sure win. The technicalities worked out where the San Francisco FDIC still had one open position to be filled from a certificate of eligibles, and I was the only eligible that was willing to fill the position. The FDIC missed the date to object to the FDIC-OPM's determination that I was fully qualified for the position, but the San Francisco FDIC contended that I was "unacceptable" based on the results of an informal interview. OPM technicalities prohibited the usage of an informal interview as if the interview were an oral exam to be used as a qualifying/disqualifying requirement in the removing of a certified eligible individual from the certificate of eligibles. The OPM maintained that a timely SF-FDIC objection was required and that the the SF FDIC failed to satisfy that requirement, and that they had to hire me, subject to the typical opportunity to terminate my employment if my job performance was not satisfactory (a continuing training program with further university education). The EEOC "administrative remedies" were the first involved because the FDIC interviewer called me and told me they weren't hiring me because of the absence of some of my major life activities, which one of my psych professors told me were absent due to the result of life-long temporal lobe epilepsy (being the soon-to-be-often labeled Geschwind Syndrome (another Geschwind Lab has more papers involving autism)).

Federal law requires all pending claims against the federal government must be asserted at the same time, which still doesn't make any sense, since different agencies, government corporations, State governments, etc. were involved, and each of the all require "exhaustion of administrative remedies" before the notice of the right to sue is delivered and/or made available, and the results were as if the federal appellate courts didn't know how that law was suppose to work either. At the administrative level, I think there were a couple dozen or so cases directly after I graduated university through university opted employers, and another dozen or so extending a decade afterwards. At the district court level, not counting remands from the appellate court, I think there were ten cases. At the 9th circuit court of appeals there were 3 agencies (OPM, FDIC, DOT/IRS) with various cases for each agency, and at the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals, one with the MSPB involving the agencies' interaction with OPM (I didn't have the money to fully protect my rights with that court, and the court gave notice of the "Equal Access To Justice Act", which my Congressman's office said did not exist (Leon Panetta's office no less!! ! (the MSPB held "disabled means failed exam" or "passed exam means not disabled" and that "passed exam and disabled" was impossible, so my position was regarded as "impossible" by them))). The SSA and State Rehab were cases of suits to motions to produce and/or suits of order to action, or something like that, which the courts effectively ignored evidence from the SSA, and contradicted themselves with State Rehab.

It wasn't until early this century that the Supreme Court officially recognized the position that someone can be disabled by SSA standards, and still be "otherwise qualified with reasonable accommodations". It wasn't until the ADAAA that disabled by SSA standards necessarily means disabled by ADAAA standards also, but not vice-versa. I had requested writs to the Supreme Court 3 times, with the last one (1996-1998?) on the issue that being SSA disabled by SSI standards necessarily satisfied the requirement of being sufficiently disabled (handicapped) under the Rehab Act & ADA (Rehab parts now (2009-2011) somewhat sloppily merged and amended into/with parts of the ADAAA), and that being disabled did not necessarily preclude reasonable accommodation being possible with essential job elements.

My last ADA administrative complaint, about 2 years ago, was against a medical clinic that threatened to deny me services if I didn't follow their advice of taking an ambulance to a distant ER over a painless migraine, triggered by a PA's perfume, that they regarded as a life threatening epileptic seizure (the Catch-22 of the ER tells me to see my doctor, while my doctor tells me to go to ER).

Since I spent all of my money looking for employment (and my Tadzio rent-boy returns plummeting from age), then seeking "administrative remedies" after a 1,000 or so failures, by the time I received notices of right to sue, I was at the resource levels required for forma pauperis motions. My first (and only) lawyer dropped me after the first EEOC ALJ hearing over all the expensive Catch-22 red-tape over every technicality imaginable, which I decided to dump right back on the agencies two or three-fold from info in the Law Libraries. Another ABA lawyer did get $20.00 out me just to tell me he was too busy to make my first appeal, which I won the first remand on my own. I tried to get another lawyer after another summary judgement, when the court of appeals granted oral arguments in front of the 3 judges, but that lawyer said the expected value was too low, even with then about $200,000 in back wages pending the ten years later.

Tadzio



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

04 Jan 2012, 10:58 am

I am withdrawing from this conversation. Last week was vacation but vacation is over. Given that I have a job and a family to care for, I really don't have the luxury to put myself out there and invest time with people who are too deep into their own assumptions to actually hear what I have to say. I can usually be understood; there aren't that many people who misinterpret me on this forum or elsewhere. The pragmatic thing to do, then, is not to engage with those who insist on misunderstanding.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

06 Jan 2012, 5:11 am

Tadzio wrote:
Hi DW_a_mom,

I'm trying to make meaningful response to pandabear right now, and I will try to edit this response shortly,
which will probably use much of the logic of Clarence Thomas, as in one article, he was cited as asserting affirmative action has an effect on Liberals as that I regard as much as the effect I have just encountered from you, as my Asperger's & Epilepsy has made you regard my outstanding success in many fields as regarded total failures that require begging and brown-nosing on my part for your self-righteous actualization of a super-ego trip.

Tadzio
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/ ... nimgC.html


I'll have to find the word for a "Martinet Pollyanna" now. It is certainly best to hide impairments whenever possible, because the reactive prejudice is tremendous, even with a mere hint of any impairment regarded as causing "whining" about being in the top 3% of the State of California (good thing I didn't "whine-brag" about Beta Gamma Sigma, though one Pollyanna said they had a new drug to stop diseases like Phi Beta Kappa too, but I was lucky with that disease).

With maybe too blunt hypotheticals, I would be tempted to rewrite the sentence "Now I knew what a law degree from Yale was worth when it bore the taint of racial preference. I was humiliated—and desperate," to the issue "Now I knew what a law degree from Yale was worth when it bore the taint of accommodation with any type of autistic impairment. My career was blocked, and I sought to protect my rights under the Rehabilitation Act." Source of cited sentence at:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3667079&page=1
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421827466

The biggest problem for me is what I would term Steven C. Hayes' "Happiness Elephant in the Room" versus the "toxic do-gooders" with self-righetous Marie Antoinette advice and attitudes, loaded down with Polyanna Panglossian nonsense, who refuse reality beyond their own overly optimistic viewpoints, and always stashed with a vial of rattlesnake venom and conservative tough-love practices for anyone otherwise (in history, social savior Reverend Jim Jones relied on cyanide and Ghoul-Aid (the "solution" wonders of the SF Bay Area's welfare programs)).

I'm still going to try to practice Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) skills with my neurological impairments, along the lines of that Hayes guy (he realizes that "complete" happiness is often not possible, despite having a perfectly positive attitude, painfully prospected as partially possible in practice). I just hope I don't get snake-bit by some cult masquerading as ACT, and that I maybe be able to de-tox the effects with ACT, from any toxic do-gooders encountered.

One of Bob Newhart's conundrums on his re-run website was his constant problem, and his constant whining, about why do all of his patients cite their problems to him, and then expect the possibility of an answer from him!! ! Of course, in the comedy series, he selected that as his career field, and didn't have it without prior choice or alternative. If it were reality, what a career choice for such a whiner!! !! Did he have any episodes involving epilepsy and/or autism??? He even awoke from being an Innkeeper!! ! (Yes, some of us "lazy scum" lay down our copies of "The Anatomy of Melancholy" to watch tv between ego-trips as management consultants (my un-welcomed advice to managers was that if they needed consultants, the managers were the problem (that's in a famous management expert's book, so don't blame me))).

Oh, and if you're interested in self-absorbed people more to your taste, my seat's vacant at the Honor Society where we just sat around telling each-other about how wonderful everything is and how smart & adept we all are, at least until the tab came due, or a problem person tainted our perfection.

Tadzio

P.S.: I'm So Vain, I Definitely Think This Web-Site Is About One Of The Impairments I Have (but I still missed the total eclipse of the Sun).



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

06 Jan 2012, 1:12 pm

Tadzio, you just don't get it.

I like people, all sorts of people, and give everyone the benefit of the doubt even when they don't give the same back to me. I was trying to figure out how to make connections with you, but you have chosen to retreat and throw departing shots with a catapult instead. Your choice, fine, but don't blame ME and your bizarre psychoanalysis of me for it. If I misread you and what you needed from me, I can own that, but all I ever had to go on were YOUR words.

To be honest, I'm not sure how much is sarcasm in your post, I'm just guessing most of it is, but if any part of you actually wants to bridge our obvious communication gap, just say so in one simple sentence. But, since indications are you prefer to sit isolated in your own assumptions no matter how off-base, I'm pretty sure this will be the end of it.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

06 Jan 2012, 2:39 pm

For the record, I asked another member of this site for their opinion on my posts, and if I was really coming off in the way you read me. If that was true, I'd want to really look at my thought process, and reconsider it. But the feedback was that my posts aren't the problem.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).