
Autistics in the Silicon Valley - prostoalex
http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/autistics-in-the-silicon-valley?utm_content=buffer77a0f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
======
angersock
_" There are HR employees, executives, janitors, schedulers, technical
writers, consultants, graphics artists, designers, and myriad other jobs at
SAP that require a totally different skill set than the one SAP’s Autism
programs searches for. And all of those jobs are able to be fulfilled well by
Autistics."_

Erm, wouldn't having communication difficulties and trouble identifying
emotional state in others be somewhat of a barrier in all but the most by-the-
book soul-sucking HR positions?

~~~
mamcx
Seriously dismissing how crippling autism is for a lot of people, and how
wildy different are the effects.

My brother is one of them, and despite is "better" than most certainly can't
have a job. In fact, is too smart to be in the repetive kind-of-jobs and too
crippled to havce a chance elsewhere.

A _very_ small subset of autistic people have won the "lottery", so can
complain about stuff and have a more-or-less independent live.

To think: Is like have a(several?) thin sword passing in to your brain, and
you don't know what _exactly_ it damage. That is autism.

~~~
mpyne
I don't think that's quite the right analogy.

The way I explain it to people regarding my son is that you have the brain,
the brain's modules are all there, but all the interconnecting stuff that
helps the different parts of the brain work together, self-regulate, etc., are
all much weaker than in a typical brain.

Thus you get people who are very impulsive, or are great problem solvers but
have trouble with language (which requires the cooperation of many different
parts of the brain), or much prefer visual inputs, etc.

Even that is only an approximation of what must be going on, but certainly
most of the gear _works_ ; it just doesn't work together concurrently as it
should.

------
cbhl
I really have a lot of trouble with this article. It seems that it's premised
around the idea that there is a wide variety of Autistics, each with unique
talents and skillsets, and that programs like those at SAP should hire and
accommodate Autistics in additional roles, such as technical writing,
communications and PR.

But then the author also starts off with wide, sweeping statements about
Autistics without citations or evidence:

> _Autism Speaks, an organization despised by most Autistics and many of their
> parents_

> _many Autistics, myself included, liken [listing ASD in the DSM V] to
> homosexuality and transsexuality being listed in previous DSMs_

As I continue to read it, I start to wonder whether the author is just upset
because they heard about SAP hiring Autistics and was disappointed that
his/her skill set wasn't a good match for the role:

> _I would be a disaster in the coding and software testing departments, but
> would be more successful in a technical writing, communications and PR role_

I hope this isn't the case, but it's hard to say.

I also imagine that it is a much easier sell for someone at SAP to say "we
should hire Autistic developers" \-- even though SAP would have to spend extra
to train the people interacting with Autistic developers, that amount is
dwarfed by the profitability of software developers in general. (The
financially-relevant but non-tangible goodwill of hiring Autistics is just
icing on the cake.) On the other hand, I feel like it'd be harder to convince
higher-ups that hiring Autistics in other roles is at all worthwhile if they
can't get through a neurotypical (unaccommodating) hiring process.

~~~
phaus
>As I continue to read it, I start to wonder whether the author is just upset
because they heard about SAP hiring Autistics and was disappointed that
his/her skill set wasn't a good match for the role.

When OP said "I would be a disaster in the coding and software testing
departments, but would be more successful in a technical writing,
communications and PR role", I interpreted it as a concern about autistic
people being typecast as techies. People are really excited to help autistic
people join the work force, but most of the efforts I see are directed at
technical jobs.

To be fair, quite a few autistic people are well-suited for technical roles. I
myself happen to fit the stereotype.

~~~
cbhl
It turns out that I can answer my question about the criticism of Autism
Speaks by reading the author's own blog posts[0].

Judging from the author's bios[1][2], it appears that the author is an
Autistic that writes. Given this context, I'm more inclined to interpret these
words literally (i.e. as in, "it's unfair that SAP is willing to accommodate
coding/testing Autistics but not me") than as a general example supporting "a
concern about autistic people being typecast as techies".

If you're looking at Autistics on a site called _Hacker News_ , I suspect
you're going to find more technical people than not. That doesn't mean you can
generalize that to the general population of Autistics.

[0]
[http://apoststructuralautistic.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/my-a...](http://apoststructuralautistic.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/my-
autism-does-in-part-define-me-and-thats-how-i-like-it/) [1]
[http://modelviewculture.com/authors/erika-lynn-
abigail](http://modelviewculture.com/authors/erika-lynn-abigail) [2]
[http://apoststructuralautistic.wordpress.com/about/](http://apoststructuralautistic.wordpress.com/about/)

~~~
phaus
>Judging from the author's bios[1][2], it appears that the author is an
Autistic that writes. Given this context, I'm more inclined to interpret these
words literally (i.e. as in, "it's unfair that SAP is willing to accommodate
coding/testing Autistics but not me") than as a general example supporting "a
concern about autistic people being typecast as techies".

I am autistic. While either of us could be wrong, I think its pretty safe to
say I have a better idea of what it means to be autistic than a person that
isn't. You are basically saying that your interpretation of what he meant is
based on the ridiculous assumption that we are incapable of making statements
that aren't intended to be taken completely literally. If being autistic
hadn't rendered me nearly immune to being offended, I'd probably be pretty
upset about someone making such an ignorant statement.

>If you're looking at Autistics on a site called Hacker News, I suspect you're
going to find more technical people than not. That doesn't mean you can
generalize that to the general population of Autistics.

As a person with Asperger's that has two nephews with severe forms of autism,
I assure you that my experience reading about autism is not limited to Hacker
News.

So basically, if I mention the simple fact that there is a stereotype about
autistic people, I am attempting to generalize the population. However, at the
same time its OK for you to make bigoted assumptions about a complaint that a
person made without actually weighing it on its own merits.

I can see how many reasonable people might end up disagreeing with the OP's
claims. Unfortunately, you appear to be simply writing it off because he's
autistic.

~~~
cbhl
For the record, I am also a person with autism.

I am "writing it off" because the author writes in a way that suggests that
their experiences represent all people with autism, but I feel that they do
not represent me.

I am not saying that the author's opinion is not valid. I think that it's a
perfectly reasonable position. What I'm upset about is the tone the author
chose to use to convey their point.

(Edit: I find it ironic that I'm writing this, because the author has written
articles saying they're upset with Autism Speaks because the tone in Autism
Speaks' materials don't agree with the author's experiences.)

------
dyadic
In the ideal world there'd be no companies explicitly seeking or denying the
autistic, just jobs available and anyone applying and then viewed as more than
autistic or not autistic.

Secondly, but perhaps more important, I see companies that solely hire the
autistic more as taking advantage than as providing assistance.

~~~
mamcx
Do you understand that autistic not mean "Like Sheldon Cooper?". Autism is use
too broadly now, so spread that include mildly issues. A serious autistic
persons is unemployable (or need constant supervision). Even the most
sympathetic employer would have a great problem trying to employ somebody that
can't communicate, can't control itself, can't take commands, can't adapt to
the situation, maybe will attack with ferocity for (apparent) no reason, or
try to injure itself, and so on.

~~~
Liesmith
It's not used 'too broadly.' Autism is a disorder on a spectrum. Some people
have mild autism, some people have moderate and some people have severe
autism. These are technical terms.

Also calling people 'autistic' and later calling people with autism 'it' as in
'try to injure itself' is a really shitty way to talk about human beings.
Check yourself.

~~~
dubfan
Did you read the article? The author uses "autistic" to refer to people with
autism (and additionally rejects the term "people with autism")

~~~
mamcx
That is a weird distinction, probably is a cultural thing? How can be better
to say one of the other?. I have more than 30 years with my twin brother. My
aunt is a professional trainer for people with disabilitues (a sport, gold-
winner kind of trainer), I have learn a bit of sign language and so on. But I
never heard that kind of argument (ie: here in colombia none of both will
sound more or less respectfull, are equivalent)

~~~
RaptorJ
There is some contention [weasel words] about what is the better way to refer
to people with disabilities/diabled persons. Here are two perspectives:

People-first:
[http://www.asha.org/publications/journals/submissions/person...](http://www.asha.org/publications/journals/submissions/person_first.htm)
and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-
first_language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language)

Identity-first: [http://www.xojane.com/issues/i-am-not-a-person-with-a-
disabi...](http://www.xojane.com/issues/i-am-not-a-person-with-a-disability-i-
am-a-disabled-person) and [http://cheshirekit.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/the-
social-model...](http://cheshirekit.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/the-social-model-
of-disability-and-person-first-vs-identity-first-language-2/)

------
byuu
Before I laud SAP's efforts to hire those with autism, I'd like to hear what
their compensation model is like. I understand that, based on the extent of
the disability they are willing to accept, that they will incur increased
managerial costs. And possibly decreased output. But I can't help but have
this nagging feeling that SAP might be using them as a very cheap labor force
for certain tasks that other higher-paid developers don't want to do (eg
extensive bug-testing.) It might be too easy to say, "well they wouldn't be
working without us, so what's wrong with minimum wage?" Perhaps I'm too
cynical.

On the whole, the term "autism" has always bugged me. I know that it's always
painted as a spectrum, but said spectrum is so wide as to render the
definition alone almost completely meaningless. A person who can't live
without constant, 24/7 supervision and is unable to communicate is in an
entirely different category than a person who just has trouble maintaining eye
contact in a conversation and is maybe a bit too passionate about some niche
interest.

Increasingly, I've seen it being used as a pejorative against software
developers (as this profession does indeed require extreme dedication),
usually by the types of people who have zero ambition of their own. Most
likely as self-validation that their apathy is normal, and it's _others_ who
have the problem.

I think this really does a disservice to the people who are genuinely
suffering from an actual disorder. And it also pushes people toward the
lighter end of the spectrum to play up how autism is really just a different
mindset and not a disorder at all.

In my _personal_ opinion, (I don't publish any manuals on mental disorders,)
if you are living on your own, earn a decent salary, have friends, and
otherwise appear completely normal to others in person; then I don't care if
you have a bit of trouble with social cues: you're not autistic. And it's
insulting if you or others refer to yourself as such. Even worse is when I see
them being used as excuses. I had some issues with social graces as a
teenager, so I practiced and do pretty well now. It's disgusting for someone
to play off issues that they could easily address with some effort on their
part. Even if it's legitimately a problem, a disorder is not an excuse to give
up on trying, and just expect everyone else to tolerate you. Yes, it sucks
that you have to try harder than others. Welcome to life, it's not fair.

I see this same situation with regards to the obsessive-compulsive label.
People who simply have a perfectly sane desire to want an organized work desk,
or to wash their hands before eating, or to double-check that they locked
their door often identify or are identified as having OCD. That's a joke
compared to the people who live in a constant state of intense anxiety, who
can get stuck for hours turning a light switch on and off hundreds of times
until it "feels right", or who end up driving around the neighborhood dozens
of times, terrified that they ran someone over and need to go and make sure
they didn't.

Let's leave the "disorder" label for people who really are disabled in a
significant, life-impairing way.

~~~
eflowers
> A person who can't live without constant, 24/7 supervision and is unable to
> communicate is in an entirely different category than a person who just has
> trouble maintaining eye contact in a conversation and is maybe a bit too
> passionate about some niche interest.

I live in Silicon Valley, and I have an autistic 9 year old son. He resembles
the former, not the latter.

Thank you for actually understanding the difference. I am glad someone gets
it. The spectrum is largely diluted to the point of needing to be broken up
into smaller spectrums. It pains me every time to explain what "low
functioning" autism is, or "classic autism".

My son was told he couldn't really join a Bay Area Autistic Minecraft group
because he was "too autistic" and it was really for high functioning autists
or "Aspies."

Maybe I should just start saying "mentally disabled". Easier.

~~~
byuu
> Thank you for actually understanding the difference. I am glad someone gets
> it.

I've seen the difference first-hand many times growing up, perhaps more so
than most having attended private schools for a while. I have nothing but
respect and adoration for you and others who care for the truly autistic.

More societal acceptance would be great for increasing quality of life, but
what we really need is further research into treatments and prevention for the
actual disorder. This downplaying of significance through "high-functioning
autism" is a disservice to that aim.

> My son was told he couldn't really join a Bay Area Autistic Minecraft group
> because he was "too autistic"

That is so intensely infuriating, I'm very sorry to hear that. If it's any
consolation, I can tell you with unfortunate experience that kids are the
cruelest of all towards those with disabilities beyond their own. Nonetheless,
I do hope you can find another group that is more accepting.

> Maybe I should just start saying "mentally disabled". Easier.

And you really shouldn't have to. It makes little sense, because as a child we
all seemed to know what autism meant. Yet lately it's become trendy to
associate with things like Aspergers (which I would argue could almost be an
advantage in today's increasingly specialized world.)

But whatever label you settle on, just don't fall into the trap of arguing
semantics. Like in the linked article, "autistic" vs "person with autism". A
label is only offensive when it's used to disparage. And in that sense, any
label can become offensive. Political correctness distracts from the core
issue.

------
VLM
Not sure how this fits in with the competing "brogrammer" model of hiring
where applicants must be racially, gender-ly and culturally a clone in order
to get hired.

~~~
CmonDev
...or the one where hiring is done to reach set diversity percentages rather
than merit-based.

------
amaks
Deeply respect SAP (and others) for doing that. Hopefully this will catch up
in other regions as well.

------
gaze
It's rude to call someone "an autistic." They are people with autism.

~~~
GregorStocks
From the article, just below the fold:

> You might have noticed several unusual things about how I discuss Autism.
> I’ve capitalized Autism, and I have not once used the word “disorder” or
> “syndrome” in tandem with it. I also say Autistic, rather than “person with
> autism” -- the term Autism Speaks, an organization despised by most
> Autistics and many of their parents, would prefer you to use.

~~~
Liesmith
Yeah, this guy doesn't speak for persons with Autism. He's trying to make an
'autistic culture' thing, acting like his disorder is just a choice, a valid
social model. Unfortunately autism is not a social model, it is a disorder
that ruins lives.

~~~
compedit
The author of this article seems to be a woman, not a man.

Also, it's a lot easier to just use 'they' instead of he/she most of the time
anyways, food for thought.

