The next frontier in workplace diversity: Brain Differences

One thing that I've felt is that the concept of "diversity", especially as it relates to the infamous "equal opportunity" forms that we all fill out on a regular basis, is simply too focused on pigeonholing people into a small number of politically-determined categories as opposed to working toward a scientifically rigorous model of diversity that could include people of every category. For example, standard "diversity" forms in the US simply do not provide a way to distinguish, say, an Scottish-American with a strong cultural background in rural Appalachia who is also a big fan of Battlestar Galactica versus a Swedish-American who grew up in a suburb of Pittsburgh and hates Battlestar Galactica.

There are some interesting models in the making that could be tried - for example, genetic research has been very fast-moving over the past few years and has resulted in some potentially shocking findings that more or less destroy the traditional concept of "race" and instead speak of ancient tribes that have been mixing and migrating for thousands of years in every direction.

So what is it that is preventing us from trying a better model? You probably know the answer - it's the politicians who get to decide which categories of people need help and which do not need help.

Consider the perspective of a white man who wants to expand his horizons and become something more, something more diverse, than his brothers. Maybe he decides to run off and live in the South Pacific for a few years in order to gain a better cultural understanding of the world, then go off and live for a year in a Russian monastery above the Arctic Circle and debate economic policy with black-robed priests while sharing bottles of cheap vodka. Will he come home with a different perspective, one making him more diverse? Probably. Can he get formal recognition of his new-found "diversity"? No.

I'll add some thoughts on the specific question of Autism-related diversity. I have suspected for a long time that I have some Autistic-like traits, but probably not enough for a formal diagnosis. Many of the things in the article make a lot of sense in terms of my own experiences.

For example, I loathe "office parties", tend to be absent, and often get razzed by superiors for not attending. Wait, you mean those were part of the JOB? Are the hourly employees getting paid to party?

It was quite eye-opening to see mention of "asking how people prefer to communicate". I'm someone that has a very strong preference for written, asynchronous communication, including email, text messaging, and instant messaging, as opposed to verbal communication in person or on the phone. I'm not a shell and can (and sometimes do) speak on the phone, but I get flustered quickly and prefer the written, async forms of communication where I can gather my thoughts, review the history of the conversation, compose my response, and revise it, rather than trying to speak "off the cuff" so to speak. It seems that everyone around me wants to switch to a phone call as soon as discussions start getting in-depth - that's my cue to switch TO email! In addition, the standard practice that people seem to feel the need to follow when trying to break "bad news" to me - i.e. giving me a very vague indication of a "need to talk", and finally bringing me to a quiet area to be gradually introduced to the news, is actually a form of emotional torture, and if I am in a bad mood and dealing with someone who I already warned, I might consider a form of emotional abuse or verbal abuse. I would just rather people send me an SMS saying (for example) "Your sister died, your boss called saying you are fired, and I'm leaving you. Signed, your soon-to-be ex-wife. Oh also, the doctor called, you have cancer.". I don't need the "comfort room"! That was just an example, by the way, not an actual notice I got.

My preference for written communication actually flies in the face of so many of the Best Practices I see mentioned in both Education and Health Care. More and more literature is coming out about how health care providers should not be giving patients brochures or citations to be looked up, but should be directly lecturing patients and/or giving recorded messages due to the fact that so many of them are functionally illiterate. I'm not functionally illiterate. At one point in school, I was tested as reading at eight grade levels above my actual age-based placement, and today I read obscure Middle English poetry at breakfast (well, maybe lunch, but you get the idea). Give me the brochure - no lectures please! I also hate recorded messages, because I have to play them back several times and take careful notes! Aaargh! Is that why I'm so weird?

I also have a fairly low tolerance for people who insist on "apologizing" when they burp or have other bodily functions. I can't seem to get it through the heads of anyone that they don't need to do this and that I only expect an apology for acts that have actually harmed me and for which the apologizer bears moral culpability. Bodily functions aren't either of those things, there is nothing to apologize for! Stop apologizing!

We now are at a point that leads back to the previous, more general comments that I had made on this thread. The author specifically mentioned that " it’s illegal to ask a candidate whether he has a disability". We also know that the Equal Opportunity forms that get filled out and filed separately only ask whether one has a disability - not the nature of or scope of a disability. There is also no place for people like me, who seem to have some disability-like traits but are "not disabled enough" to qualify under programs as a Person with a Disability. That means that I largely can't take advantage of transitional programs that might actually help me.

So what can we actually do?