Quote from: Dori on June 25, 2015, 08:50:43 AM
^I think that's a great idea.  Unfortunately, there isn't enough information/help for people like yourself who want to work, but don't quite fit into the current system.  Hang in there, as long as you keep trying and don't get too discouraged, you will find something out there that fits you.  However, keep busy, like the autobiography.   

It seems to me there is a real need for those with spectrum issues to have some kind of job placement agency. 

Have you developed any software on your own?  It seems like with the popularity of gaming, that might be an area you might like.  Even better, design games for kids with autism.  I know one young boy who is in the middle of the spectrum, but he seems to be unbeatable on those games.

Definitely concur. He has the gift of communication, and like you said, to most, this is an unknown subject, something parents would find invaluable.

Quote from: cubedemon on June 25, 2015, 06:40:50 AM
1.  Cut out your lazy crap
2.  Teach myself something
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
.
.
.
n

and then what?   What are the absolute and correct steps one must do after these first two steps?  What are steps 3 - n?  You're saying nothing.

Start with the first one.  Let me know when you have completed that.

Quote from: taxed on June 25, 2015, 02:19:28 PM
Start with the first one.  Let me know when you have completed that.

He has autism.   

Quote from: Dori on June 25, 2015, 04:36:37 PM
He has autism.   

I don't think so.

Quote from: kroz on June 25, 2015, 08:26:50 AM
I would think that Aspergers Syndrome would almost rule out working for other people.

Self employment would seem like the best option.  Anything you could do by yourself would eliminate the hazards of conflict and sudden unemployment.

What do you enjoy doing?  Is it marketable?

Here's the issue with that.  First,  This means instead of employers being my boss it would be the customer who would be my boss.  If I can't even sell myself in an interview due to lack of social skills and communication issues then how can I sell myself and a product to a customer.   If I have to have social skills to sell myself to an employer than I have to have these exact social skills times 100 to go into business for myself.

Second, customers are going to want to know when they will have their products done by or when they will have their computers fixed by or how long will it take me to create a computer program.   I am literally unable to answer such a question because it requires me to come up with an estimate and I have no clue as to how to give.   The answer depends upon multiple factors and is situational dependent. 

Third, I wouldn't have any clue as to how to determine what is marketable.   

Fourth, I wouldn't have any clue as to how to set a price for a product and/or service because it requires another estimate that again I have no clue as to how to come up with.

Fifth, I am unable to display the confidence and be the confident person others want me to be.  Here is why.  https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/confidence-and-honesty/

Quote from: Solar on June 25, 2015, 09:56:41 AM
Definitely concur. He has the gift of communication, and like you said, to most, this is an unknown subject, something parents would find invaluable.

My supposed "gift" in communication is not as simple as you think.   It is true that I can and do write in a very formalist and pedantic style.  The thing is I do have communication issues.

a.  I tend to take things very literally.  Example:   It took me a long time to understand what "You're entitled to nothing meant." 

The root word of the word entitled is entitle.  Here is the definition.  https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=entitle

It's not the second definition because we're not talking about bestowing titles like Admiral or Director, etc.

More than likely it is the first definition.

Definition:  give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

This is how I looked at it.  I imagined it in set theory terms.

Let's say we have the set of all that is Receivable R.
Let's say we have the set of all that is Doable D. 
Let's say we have the set of all Entitlements E.

So, we have the given formula of R & D & E.   A member has to occur in all three of these given sets.

Let's imagine we have subsets (a - z ) that are members of all three super sets R, D, and E.  The subsets (a - z) also have negations that are a part of all three super sets R, D, and E. 

Now, we can establish these four theorems based upon the maxim of "You're entitled to nothing."

a.   a is entitled to e
b.   a is entitled to ~e
c.   a is not entitled to e.
d.   a is not entitled to ~e. 

~ means negation of course.  For example we have red and it's negation non-red(anything that is not red).

Since theorms c and d are the only ones that can hold up, then one can derive these things.

i.  Bob is not entitled to murder Sally.
ii.  Bob is not entitled to not murder Sally.

Both are true at the same time since no one is entitled to anything.  It would be a contradiction and we would end up with Russell's Paradox.   Are there entity's that do not contain themselves or are there entitlements that are not entitlements? 

So, let's say somehow it is possible for entities to contain themselves.  So we have the entity A which equals E ^ ~E.

So, by the maxim of "You're entitled to nothing" we can't even be entitled to entity A as well.  So, one isn't even entitled to an empty set.   So, how is one truthfully entitled to nothing?  The only way this could be satisfied would be is that everyone would have to be in a construct like the Matrix.  In the Matrix, it is possible to have a non-empty set and be granted a non-empty set and outside in which one's mind is hooked up one has nothing.     This was my thinking a while back.   This is how my mind operates naturally.




b.  I tend to miss the gestalt or the big picture on things and end up focusing on the details instead.
c.   I have issues with figurative language
d.  I have problems with non-verbal language, facial expressions, other people's tone and emphasis on particular syllables of a word.
e.  I have extreme trouble with eye contact because it is painful for me.
f.  I have extreme trouble with gauging the amount of grip that one should have when giving a handshake.  People don't like fishy ones but how do I give a firm handshake without squeezing hard like BA Baracus on the A-Team? (Old series)
g.   I have problems with social pragmatic use of the English Language.  http://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/Pragmatics/

Quote from: cubedemon on July 09, 2015, 04:17:41 PM

e.  I have extreme trouble with eye contact because it is painful for me.

Can you explain that in more detail?  I know that is a common trait in people on the spectrum.  Does it only apply to people, or does that also happen when looking at animals, or looking at pictures, etc.? 

Quote from: Dori on July 09, 2015, 04:27:39 PM
Can you explain that in more detail?  I know that is a common trait in people on the spectrum.  Does it only apply to people, or does that also happen when looking at animals, or looking at pictures, etc.?

For me, it feels weird and is painful for me.  I can look into an animals eyes and pictures as well.   People, not so much Dori.   

There is one exception though that was very scary for me.  I can tell you for sure that this person was a psychopath.   Imagine looking into the eyes of Cho Sueung Hui.   https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cho+sueung+hui

Imagine looking into the eyes of pure evil itself and imagine not being able to move or even speak.  The one time I was able to successfully able to make eye contact I saw Cho's exact expression.  In normal circustances, I have major difficulty and for me it is very painful and unnerving. 

Quote from: cubedemon on July 09, 2015, 04:17:41 PM
My supposed "gift" in communication is not as simple as you think.   It is true that I can and do write in a very formalist and pedantic style.  The thing is I do have communication issues.

a.  I tend to take things very literally.  Example:   It took me a long time to understand what "You're entitled to nothing meant." 

The root word of the word entitled is entitle.  Here is the definition.  https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=entitle

It's not the second definition because we're not talking about bestowing titles like Admiral or Director, etc.

More than likely it is the first definition.

Definition:  give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

This is how I looked at it.  I imagined it in set theory terms.

Let's say we have the set of all that is Receivable R.
Let's say we have the set of all that is Doable D. 
Let's say we have the set of all Entitlements E.

So, we have the given formula of R & D & E.   A member has to occur in all three of these given sets.

Let's imagine we have subsets (a - z ) that are members of all three super sets R, D, and E.  The subsets (a - z) also have negations that are a part of all three super sets R, D, and E. 

Now, we can establish these four theorems based upon the maxim of "You're entitled to nothing."

a.   a is entitled to e
b.   a is entitled to ~e
c.   a is not entitled to e.
d.   a is not entitled to ~e. 

~ means negation of course.  For example we have red and it's negation non-red(anything that is not red).

Since theorms c and d are the only ones that can hold up, then one can derive these things.

i.  Bob is not entitled to murder Sally.
ii.  Bob is not entitled to not murder Sally.

Both are true at the same time since no one is entitled to anything.  It would be a contradiction and we would end up with Russell's Paradox.   Are there entity's that do not contain themselves or are there entitlements that are not entitlements? 

So, let's say somehow it is possible for entities to contain themselves.  So we have the entity A which equals E ^ ~E.

So, by the maxim of "You're entitled to nothing" we can't even be entitled to entity A as well.  So, one isn't even entitled to an empty set.   So, how is one truthfully entitled to nothing?  The only way this could be satisfied would be is that everyone would have to be in a construct like the Matrix.  In the Matrix, it is possible to have a non-empty set and be granted a non-empty set and outside in which one's mind is hooked up one has nothing.     This was my thinking a while back.   This is how my mind operates naturally.




b.  I tend to miss the gestalt or the big picture on things and end up focusing on the details instead.
c.   I have issues with figurative language
d.  I have problems with non-verbal language, facial expressions, other people's tone and emphasis on particular syllables of a word.
e.  I have extreme trouble with eye contact because it is painful for me.
f.  I have extreme trouble with gauging the amount of grip that one should have when giving a handshake.  People don't like fishy ones but how do I give a firm handshake without squeezing hard like BA Baracus on the A-Team? (Old series)
g.   I have problems with social pragmatic use of the English Language.  http://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/Pragmatics/

OK, first off, you over think simplicity way too much.
"You", in this country, are entitled to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, beyond that, you are entitled to your own opinion.
That really is about it.

Or in the event an employer offers you a health and retirement package, you are accorded certain entitlements.

Quote from: Solar on July 09, 2015, 05:31:02 PM
OK, first off, you over think simplicity way too much.
"You", in this country, are entitled to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, beyond that, you are entitled to your own opinion.
That really is about it.

Or in the event an employer offers you a health and retirement package, you are accorded certain entitlements.

I agree!

I think he is playing with us..... 

Quote from: kroz on July 09, 2015, 05:43:00 PM
I agree!

I think he is playing with us.....

Interesting!   Very, Very Interesting!

I have had people accuse me and other aspies of this as well.   Why?   Why do people believe I and others are playing games?   My hypothesis: 
https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/the-uncanny-valley/

QuoteOK, first off, you over think simplicity way too much.
"You", in this country, are entitled to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, beyond that, you are entitled to your own opinion.
That really is about it.

Or in the event an employer offers you a health and retirement package, you are accorded certain entitlements.

I think I understand what you're saying.   What most people do in their communication style is a form of verbal shorthand.   

The phrase "You're entitled to nothing" is equivalent to "You're entitled to nothing that exists outside of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, my opinion and what others choose to give."   The part that is after the word nothing is implied and assumed knowledge by most people.  Is this correct?

It's sort of similar to asking "what is on TV?"   My literal answer would be I don't know.   There is something else that is implied though.  What they're asking is "What is on TV and if you do not know can you please find out and tell me."  That's what they're really saying.  Is this correct?

Quote from: kroz on July 09, 2015, 05:43:00 PM
I agree!

I think he is playing with us.....

Ya think?

Quote from: quiller on July 10, 2015, 04:46:33 AM
Ya think?

Absolutely!!!!   

Quote from: kroz on July 10, 2015, 05:09:41 AM
Absolutely!!!!   

I have others. They're not nearly as kind.

Whining about one's self-professed illnesses in a public forum always incites suspicions that poster is falsely seeking sympathy. In this case he seeks absolution. Not from me.