"Differently Abled"

[Barliman]

Quote:
For those who have been diagnosed "abnormal" by our society, this problem is especially prevalent. Such people are variably labeled anti-social, eccentric, introverted, highly sensitive, ADD, bipolar, neuro-atypical, differently abled, gifted, or one of many other similar terms that have a derogatory effect. The trouble is that the only people who ever made any worthwhile changes in this world belonged to one of these categories.

ref:
http://www.realitysandwich.com/funding_my_existence

This site- "Reality Sandwich" is one of the places where I feel most at home amongst my peers.

Most of our ADD sites are too full of people embracing their identity as individuals pathologised by the mainstream, accepting the validity of the judgement of the individuals who just see us as pathological, and too empty of people keen to embrace their strengths.

Of course- for those prepared to look further once on the page- this is a very odd website and "some of the views expressed are not necessarily ones I agree with". (You know- the usual disclaimer posted in these days of conformity and political correctness).

[Fuzzy12]

I had to read this article several times to be sure that I'm not missing something. If I am, I can't find it. Phew, where do I start????

I'll start with the term "differently abled". I agree that not everyone has the same skills or even needs to have the same skills. Modern society is based on the concept that if we all work together, then we can symbiotically utilize our different skills. However, this concept works on the assumption that the majority of people have some skills that are useful to the rest of society. I would apply the term "differently abled" to NT's, not necessarily to people with a mental or physical disorder.

I am not differently abled. I feel disabled. There are very specific skills that I am lacking with no other skills to make up for it. I am not completely useless. I do have some skills but those are not because of my disorders, they are inspite of it. We have had so many threads about what might be positive about having ADHD and from what I can see, well there is nothing. It might not be the worst thing in the world, but there is no upside. Neither for the affected individual, nor for the rest of society.

I also don't think that it's because we live in the wrong kind of society or that there could be one in which we might not only survive but actually thrive. Well, we would thrive in the utopian world that the author describes but I doubt it would be a better society for everyone.

To me, it sounds like a monarchy. A society, where a certain class of people are funded, not based on merit, but based on birth. That this class is made of the weakest links in society doesn't help. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe in capitalism. I believe in a strongly social welfare state, one that takes care of everyone who can't take care of themselves, but not one that enables and encourages purely living off others as a way of life.

There are several problems with the article:

For those who have been diagnosed "abnormal" by our society, this problem is especially prevalent. Such people are variably labeled anti-social, eccentric, introverted, highly sensitive, ADD, bipolar, neuro-atypical, differently abled, gifted, or one of many other similar terms that have a derogatory effect. The trouble is that the only people who ever made any worthwhile changes in this world belonged to one of these categories.

Um, sources? References? Who are the people who made worthwhile changes as a direct outcome of their ADD, bi polar disorder, etc.?? Is the author sure that for every ADHDer (etc.) who has benefited the world positively, there aren't several NT's who have done so as well?

The most creative visionaries often cannot function adequately in modern society. This makes it extremely hard to avoid unemployment, let alone to feed and shelter oneself. But admit that you feel this way, and you're instantly labeled lazy, arrogant, elitist, etc. We're evidently not ready to admit on a mass scale that the current definition of a "normal" human being is not only imaginary, but impossible.

This is possible, but the problem is that not everyone who is disabled or different is necessarily a creative visionary. Not everyone who is wrongly or rightly accused of being lazy, arrogant, elitist, etc. is a creative visionary.

"...we must give each human who is or becomes unemployed a life fellowship in research and development or in just simple thinking. Man must be able to dare to think truthfully and to act accordingly without fear of losing his franchise to live. [...] For every 100,000 employed in research and development, or just plain thinking, one probably will make a breakthrough that will more than pay for the other 99,999 fellowships."

No, again this article seems to assume that having a disorder means that you have an automatic pre disposition for research and development. Yes, for every 100 000 researchers there might be one that will make a break through but why should that one necessarily have a disorder? Again, I can't see how our disorders are an asset in any way. If anything, my depression and my ADHD like symptoms seriously hinder my research. Research isn't just about having fancy ideas (and I admit, I am good at those but being NT doesn't automatically mean you can't have good ideas). Research requires prolonged periods of systematic, organized and controlled thinking. It requires self motivation and tenacity. Not something we really excel at, I guess.

And I guess that you could divide the labour in such a way, that ADHDer's only job is to have fancy, visionary ideas and that other people work on the nitty gritty details but that doesn't justify funding them. Having an idea is easy. Even NT's can do it ;-) Working out those ideas, applying them constructively, is the challenging part.

This will never be possible in a purely capitalistic system that runs according to the tenets of selfishness and greed -- or the misapplied motto "survival of the fittest."

"Survival of the fittest" isn't a life style. Neither is it a choice. Survival of the fittest doesn't have to imply asocialness. I think, humans (and other animals) have realised that it's in the interest of everyone to work together and that society can benefit the individual. If it didn't, we wouldn't live in a society. Humans, like other animals, with very few exceptions, are driven by selfishness and by the desire to have more. Being non-NT doesn't change that. Besides, if we didn't want more for ourselves, why would anyone come up with any idea. Research is driven by need and the desire for progress. Thankfully, we have realised that progress that benefits everyone, in the long run, helps the individual, but we don't live in a society for purely altruistic reasons.

For some of us, a "job" or a "career" is not the answer. For some, it's time to admit: "What I really need is help FUNDING MY EXISTENCE." Fuller also used the term "mind fellowships."

For some of us, a job or a career isn't possible and some do need help funding their existence. I am not convinced though that funding people's existence in the hope that they will come up with great ideas makes sense. I'm happy to fund people (and be funded) who need it so that everyone can survive but I don't like the idea of funding people with the assumption that they'll come up with a world changing plan. Why would they? Speaking purely from experience, I don't work well without incentives. In a way I am funded by my husband and family, but it doesn't make me excel, it just allows me to survive without contributing. On a day off, I have less creative ideas than on working days. I tend to sleep, watch TV, wallow in my depression and ultimately waste most of the day. Why? In a way it's both because I can & because I'm unable to be any different.

"Through the universal research and development fellowships, we're going to start emancipating humanity from being muscle and reflex machines. We're going to give everybody a chance to develop their most powerful mental and intuitive faculties. [...] What we want everybody to do is to think clearly."

Is he talking about everybody? Or is he talking about a select few? those who are currently labelled as "disabled" or "differently abled"? If you are a perfectly normal and healthy individual would you be able to obtain a lifetime of funding?

With this spirit in mind, let's give birth to an online community designed to provide existential funding to the people who need it. Recipients will have to demonstrate what value they have contributed to society in the form of ideas, projects, art, innovation, social movements, etc. Donors will be able to choose which individuals interest them the most.

This part contradicts everything he has written so far. If recipients have to demonstrate that they have contributed already to society then I don't think those of us who are differently abled will do very well. He is basically saying that you can only be funded if you are perfectly able to work in this society exactly the way it is. Also, his online community doesn't sound very different to the way things are now. Anyone can apply for funding based on their credentials, contributions, etc. I'm not sure that an online community will do a better job of selecting more worthwhile projects that will benefit everyone than the current traditional funding bodies. Besides, there is nothing to stop anyone from funding anything or anyone.

[ginniebean]

There are definitely issues involved with the idea of "differently abled". As a phrase it was coined as a means of getting the message out to employers that hiring someone with a disability did not need to be a losing proposition. So many of disabled people have education and a willingness to work, they have the ability but the opportunities simply are not there. One of the biggest stumbling blocks has been accommodation. Employers fear it for a number of reasons, cost, because out of ignorance they do not realize that most accommodations cost under a hundred dollars and that there are incentive and reimbursement programs to assist with the "burden". Then they concern themselves with fears of firing people with disabilities because they have supreme fear of being taken to court for discrimination. Given the statistics these fears are groundless but unfortunately there are those who for whatever reason fan these fears and rumour substitutes for logic. The biggest hurdle when it comes to accommodation tho are not employers directly but rather ordinary folk in the work place who view accommodation as a perk rather than a means of leveling the playing field.They complain, and ***** about and this leads to a lowering of morale and from an employers standpoint, low morale means lost productivity. It's much easier to not hire the disabled or to expect the disabled to struggle to get along without any accommodation so as not to arouse the jealous eye of other employees.


It is a good rhetorical tool but it has limitations.

One of these limitations is that it has been used to minimize the disabling nature of disability itself. That anyone suggesting they have limitations is making excuses or is in somemanner malingering because you're not really disabled, you are just differently abled.If you, as a differently abled person worked harder, managed your conditioned not better you wouldn't need accommodation or "special treatment" as the lackwits like to maunder on about.

There is a hostility towards those with disability and efforts to characterize pwd's as lazy, whining, entitled layabouts that is something akin to attitudes towards immigrants. If immigrants are poor, willing to do **** jobs and eke out a meagre living as meekly and quietly as possible this is acceptable, however, wealthy immigrants are looked at with great hostility, they have not earned the rights.

People with disabilities are expected to be objects of charity, suitable humble and grateful for what ever scrap is tossed to them, after all, do they not owe their very ability to live to those who are able bodied workers? An educated disabled person demanding that the discrimination end, demanding that civil rights not be violated, and expecting employers to hire them is uppity and lacks the servility of the proper order of social expectations.

Then, there is thisnideologicl type, where the world needs to completely change and our disabilities will finally be seen for.what they really are, unique and genius gifts that for so long went unrecognized because of the rigid architecture of our social, academic and working world's.

[ginniebean]

Btw Andrew, so good to see you back, we don't always agree but I've missed ya.

[Plognark]

I've run into that 'perk' perspective directed towards people with physical disabilities. Very unfortunate.

Privilege can be a very harmful thing, not just for the underprivileged, but also for the privileged people who never develop a proper ability to empathize with someone else's situation.

'Differently abled' seems patronizing to me, but I'm very cynical.

[Lunacie]

Originally Posted by Barliman

Quote:
For those who have been diagnosed "abnormal" by our society, this problem is especially prevalent. Such people are variably labeled anti-social, eccentric, introverted, highly sensitive, ADD, bipolar, neuro-atypical, differently abled, gifted, or one of many other similar terms that have a derogatory effect. The trouble is that the only people who ever made any worthwhile changes in this world belonged to one of these categories.

ref:
http://www.realitysandwich.com/funding_my_existence

This site- "Reality Sandwich" is one of the places where I feel most at home amongst my peers.

Most of our ADD sites are too full of people embracing their identity as individuals pathologised by the mainstream, accepting the validity of the judgement of the individuals who just see us as pathological, and too empty of people keen to embrace their strengths.

Of course- for those prepared to look further once on the page- this is a very odd website and "some of the views expressed are not necessarily ones I agree with". (You know- the usual disclaimer posted in these days of conformity and political correctness).

My disorder keeps me from making good use of my strengths.

I'd also like some info to back up the claim that that only those people with the listed labels have made any worthwhile changes.

[Fortune]

"Neuroatypical" is terminology that was coined within the disability community, and not a label applied by others.

[Retromancer]

I had difficulty getting past the first paragraph. Where is that Creative Class that he speaks of? Interesting fact in the Wikipedia article that the author helpfully linked to:

In his 2002 study, Florida concluded that the Creative Class would be the leading force of growth in the economy expected to grow by over 10 million jobs in the next decade, which would now be the present day (2012) and equal almost 40% of the current population.

I can emphatically say that is not the case here in oh so hip Seattle and I doubt it is true anywhere else.

Tl;dr: The article is a large steaming pile of wishful thinking.

[Abi]

Welcome back Barliman

*wanders off*

[Retromancer]

Oh and welcome back Barliman.

[ToneTone]

I'm afraid that linked piece was just juvenile and silly.

The article is right to say that we should NOT write off people who can't hold jobs. But then article then takes the totally twisted step of arguing that there is something wrong with holding a job that not being able to hold a job is a sign of virtue.

One of my heroes is Martin Luther King Jr. He used to occasionally joke that protesting southern racism and segregation required people who were in some way maladjusted, meaning unable to fully accept the system of southern racism.

But even when it came to rebelling and protesting that unfair system, the protesters had to schedule meetings, raise money, send out fund-raising letters, gather at an appointed time to meet, practice training in non-violence, show up at the right time, call lawyers ahead of getting arrested, plan to have money to get out of jail, call friends ahead of time to check on you in jail, etc ....

Changing the system requires an immense amount of order, precision, thoroughness.

I'm all for creative people getting lots of support in helping with tedious tasks. But there are a lot of jobs in our economy (yes the current situation isn't so great), and I think there is room out there for people who lack organizational skills to find a good way to make a living.

Planning and creativity are not at all in tension. That's a myth of people who just don't know anything. Rock stars have to show up for their concerts and for their practices and when they don't, this takes a big toll on the band, on their families and on themselves ... and just ask Steve Tyler: he said he and his bandmates were so out of it at times that they twice, twice, had managers steal a lot of their money.

I'd bet that he now appreciates the ability to focus and pay attention to details.

Tone

[Fortune]

Planning is pretty vital for creativity.

I have worked in a creative line of work. Trying to do the work without the planning is a huge waste of time.

[Barliman]

Originally Posted by ToneTone

Rock stars have to show up for their concerts and for their practices and when they don't, this takes a big toll on the band, on their families and on themselves ... and just ask Steve Tyler: he said he and his bandmates were so out of it at times that they twice, twice, had managers steal a lot of their money.


Tone

Actually Rock Stars are pretty much the classic example- I am currently sharing a flat with a friend who has worked in the music industry all her life as a promoter and tourer of bands, and running a nightclub - and now she knows about ADHD, her take is that that explains everything she has had to struggle with in her worklife.

USUALLY the do show up for their concerts, but they do live very chaotic lives.

As per previous posts I have made on the subject the general thrust is not that our "disorder produces our creativity" but that we have minds that think differently- in a non linear fashion ( as my psychiatrist says).
That different thinking style is very hard to fit into a rigid society that has a limited range of jobs available and limited flexibility for people who operate on different timelines or body clocks.

On this point I am quite simply medically unable to tolerate night shift.
Or for instance the traditional tribal values of our indigenous population, with their commitments to family and ceremonial obligations are incompatible with the requirements of a rigid workforce.

The suggested idea is that we suffer psychic trauma from trying to fit our "differently abled selves" into the limited structures available within this society- and that much of the disorder in our disorders stems from that problem not from anything primarily wrong with us.

I suspect that that perspective is at least part right.

[Abi]

Originally Posted by Barliman

The suggested idea is that we suffer psychic trauma from trying to fit our "differently abled selves" into the limited structures available within this society- and that much of the disorder in our disorders stems from that problem not from anything primarily wrong with us.

ADHD children start acting out as toddlers. Autism is diagnosable in infants. I personally fit the criteria for severe GAD at age 3. I can REMEMBER the feelings of anxiety.

How on earth do the "limiting structures of society" explain this??

[Drewbacca]

Originally Posted by Retromancer

I had difficulty getting past the first paragraph. Where is that Creative Class that he speaks of? Interesting fact in the Wikipedia article that the author helpfully linked to:

Just my opinion, but Richard Florida is a joke. He's just out to make money and his theories really don't hold much water. I understand the appeal of "the creative class," heck, I bought his book when it first came out.

Since he made his debut in the mainstream, he has disappointed me time and again with weak arguments, weak evidence, and an obvious financial incentive to keep writing. Just my two cents, but I feel it is important to share it regarding this guy. I've torn apart several of his popular-articles filled with bad science. You've been warned.