Paluszek Nicole

*** Just the other day I went to the theater with these gift tickets a
friend had given us so that we could go see the movie Narnia.(snip)***

Nanci I think you handled that situation very competently, IMHO it would take an almost-saint to do any better. So in this case I doubt bringing out the label would be helpful. The woman at the cinema sounds like perhaps some label would fit her- perhaps "borderline personality disorder"? (I'm not trying to make a diagnosis here, just illustrating how we all have traits that when viewed in a certain context, could lead to a diagnosis by an overzealous doctor or therapist, lol!)
Imagine this woman announcing first to every customer "I have *****"(not a very likely scenario) Would it be helpful? I have my doubts. If someone chooses a job that involves dealing with a lot of people they should at least bring a "service heart" or so it seems to me. Then, if they have a minor slip in etiquette now and then it is likely to be forgiven by all but the most rigid of customers.
(To clarify: I don't think this woman was having a minor slip, I think she was forgetting what she was there for, and also her manager may have taught her some bad habits with regard to that.)
IMO good manners are a means, not a goal in itself. The goal is to help people interact and communicate more smoothly. The moment that function is no longer being fulfilled, they need to be dropped in favor of plain, straight-shooting communication.
You didn't get rude. You didn't start attacking the woman personally. You just tried to communicate plainly where that was in order. If the other wasn't listening, that's not your problem.
I love the way people with autistic traits often say what they mean and mean what they say- I think there is something for all of humanity to learn from it regarding honesty, sense of humor and sense of life. Nurturing the "Inner Court Jester".

Nicole


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos
Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gold Standard

*** Just the other day I went to the theater with these gift tickets a
friend had given us so that we could go see the movie Narnia.(snip)***

>>>Nanci I think you handled that situation very competently, IMHO it would
take an almost-saint to do any better.<<

I would tend to automatically agree with this too Nanci, if it weren't for
the many times I've seen dh and ds in scenarios where they see themselves as
being really reasonable, and explain it as such, yet from my being there and
seeing the scenario unfold with the other person just becoming incensed, I
can see that dh and/or ds are behaving in a way that is seen as very rude,
even though they are just "being logical" or "being honest".

So the way you describe it does sound like you were reasonable and the
ticket taker was off her rocker. And that certainly may be the case. But I
also wonder if there might have been more nuanced things going on that you
missed.

I've seen people who are typically very courteous get very mad at dh. And he
needs a debriefing to see where the breakdown happened.

Just another thought :o)

Jacki

Pamela Sorooshian

On Jan 13, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Paluszek Nicole wrote:

> I love the way people with autistic traits often say what they
> mean and mean what they say- I think there is something for all of
> humanity to learn from it regarding honesty, sense of humor and
> sense of life. Nurturing the "Inner Court Jester".

Me too. Although I understand how that very trait can cause people
trouble, too, I also find it very appealing.

And - I wish I had read this post before I posted my last one because
THIS is what I was talking about - doesn't it seem FAR more accurate
and vastly less potentially damaging to say, a person "with autistic
traits" as opposed to "an autistic person?"

I suppose some of you might think this is splitting hairs - but it
seems like a very significant difference to me. The first statement
sounds like autistic traits are among the many traits that person
has, but the second sounds like it defines the entire person.

-pam





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

Because I've spent most of my adult life working with people who have various exceptionalities, both in and out of schools, the whole "person first" thing is second-nature to me. I cringe when I hear people referred to as "the autistic kid" or worse, "the autistic". I'm not sure traits is always accurate, because it implies that the person doesn't have all of the characteristics usually associated with a condition, although he has some - but "person with autism" makes it clear that the person comes first, and autism doesn't define a person any more than does red hair or a penchant for mystery novels.
Dar

-- Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
And - I wish I had read this post before I posted my last one because
THIS is what I was talking about - doesn't it seem FAR more accurate
and vastly less potentially damaging to say, a person "with autistic
traits" as opposed to "an autistic person?"

I suppose some of you might think this is splitting hairs - but it
seems like a very significant difference to me. The first statement
sounds like autistic traits are among the many traits that person
has, but the second sounds like it defines the entire person.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.xanga.com/freeformlife


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Paluszek Nicole wrote:

> The woman at the cinema sounds like perhaps some label would fit
> her- perhaps "borderline personality disorder"?

==============

This isn't cool.

Especially if there was a line at the ticket office, taking her word
for it, giving her the amount of money she asked for and going on
into the theatre would've been better for all concerned. If it
seemed really wrong and you wanted more information you could have
asked a manager inside. To justify drawn out questions of a bottom-
rung employee while insulting that same employee has no place on this
list.

Let's talk about unschooling.

-=-You didn't get rude. You didn't start attacking the woman
personally. You just tried to communicate plainly where that was in
order. If the other wasn't listening, that's not your problem.-=-

The story sounded to me more like an attempt at long analysis of some
little policy that isn't worth arguing about.
There are times and places to interrogate employees and at the ticket
office in January probably isn't the best time.

Sandra

Sandra Dodd

On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Paluszek Nicole wrote:

> I love the way people with autistic traits often say what they
> mean and mean what they say- I think there is something for all of
> humanity to learn from it regarding honesty, sense of humor and
> sense of life.


Do you think that is something exclusively in the realm of "people
with autistic traits"? Probably not all of them "say what they
mean," and probably "all of them" couldn't be identified anyway, and
there are many people who are not "people with autistic traits" who
say what they mean and mean what they say.

Let's talk about unschooling.

Sandra

queenjane555

> And - I wish I had read this post before I posted my last one
>because THIS is what I was talking about - doesn't it seem FAR >more
>accurate and vastly less potentially damaging to say, a
>person "with autistic traits" as opposed to "an autistic person?"

At my former job, we were encouraged to use whats called "People
First" language....put the person first, the disability second. So one
might be "a person who used a wheelchair" instead of a "wheelchair
bound person", or an "individual dealing with bipolar disorder"
instead of "a manic depressive". We tried really hard not to define
people by whatever disorder, mental illness, genetic condition, or
disability they were dealing with. I guess that was why it was so
startling to me to hear the terms "aspie" and "autie", just very
strange to my ears.

I sometimes say that i have an "ADD type personality" meaning i
possess alot of the characteristics associated with the definition
of "ADD", but since i don't believe that the "disorder" of ADD
actually exists (meaning, i dont think its an actual
disorder/illness/condition to be treated)I can't suffer from it. But i
do believe those traits are real, and can cause problems for some
people.


Katherine

Sandra Dodd

On Jan 15, 2006, at 12:17 AM, queenjane555 wrote:

> I sometimes say that i have an "ADD type personality" meaning i
> possess alot of the characteristics associated with the definition
> of "ADD", but since i don't believe that the "disorder" of ADD
> actually exists (meaning, i dont think its an actual
> disorder/illness/condition to be treated)I can't suffer from it. But i
> do believe those traits are real, and can cause problems for some
> people.

-------------------------------------------

I don't say it (what you said), but I do have those traits.
When I was in school I was gifted instead of hyperactive because I
got good grades. Had I acted JUST as I did and gotten bad grades, I
would have been hyperactive. As it was, they just said I was bored
because the classwork was too easy. If I'd been getting bad grades,
they wouldn't have said bored, they would have said I was
undisciplined, lazy, inattentive, uncooperative. I was all those
things but I was able to pull an A in a short sprint of filling in
forms or tossing off an essay at the last minute.

I had other friends who could have done that--spent five minutes of
each classtime doing A work--but at some point they had become so
resentful of teachers and of school that they just refused to
cooperate. Sometimes they would make their point by asking the
teacher a difficult question about the lesson, giving her a withering
look if her answer was lame, looking away dramatically, and not
turning in the assignment. That was some impressive passive
resistence. <g>

I guess I should add that to my list of things that made me confident
about unschooling. Most of us ("us" being the curious and talkative
musician-kids I hung out with) learned the really good things we knew
outside of school anyway. The reason we could ask such probing
questions was that by the time we got the geography or history lesson
the school was doling out, we already knew something of the place and
time.

So with the removal of ALL of that schedule/school/textbook/grade-
level monstrosity from the horizon, it doesn't matter if my kids (or
any of yours) learn quickly or slowly, or if they avoid a subject or
they're "behind" or "ahead," because without "subjects" and
deadlines, they're learning right now the same way they will learn
when they're 30 and 50.

They're already living lives of learning, and learning life.

Sandra