I need help with insight RE: school

[Outdated]

I'm fine if I'm seeing people on a day to day basis, but if I haven't seen them for a few weeks I have no idea who they are. A lot of people find this very insulting, especially ex girlfriends.

 

[Kevin L.]

I'm fine if I'm seeing people on a day to day basis, but if I haven't seen them for a few weeks I have no idea who they are. A lot of people find this very insulting, especially ex girlfriends.

I have had the exact same issue. When I was much younger, an idiot started a fight with me in a bar, and when I got up from the ground after being punched, I kicked the wrong guy in the testicles because my prosopagnosia caused me to confuse him with my assailant.

 

[Outdated]

It also makes pub trivia nights interesting, if they ask a question about a media personality I always give the same answer - Katherine Hepburn. I wouldn't recognise her in a line up either but it's a name I remember. I have no idea who the actors are in most movies, I reckon it makes the movies more interesting that way.

 

[Au Naturel]

I want to thank everybody very much for weighing in.

I got a lot of constructive ideas, and I'll see where I can go with them.

My issue still remains how to decide when to break and/or bend the rules . . . and it's been this way since I was a child.

For example, my parents told me never to talk to strangers. Never.

They also told me that just because other kids do something that's wrong, that this isn't an excuse for me to do somethingvthat's wrong (like shoplifting or doing drugs).

Well . . . I get sent home from school because I refused to acknowledge or talk to a teacher. She was a substitute teacher and, therefore, a stranger (I had never seen her before).

The first thing out of my father's mouth when they were screaming at me was "You can see all the other kids talking to her!"

And I said that just because the other kids were doing something wrong by talking to a stranger doesn't mean that I can do something that's wrong.

I guess that part of my issue is that I sometimes believe in absolutes.

I am also (in addition to being autistic) a recovered alcoholic, and I haven't had a drink in almost 17 years. It isn't a higher power that keeps me from drinking, or meetings, or 12 steps.

It's against the rules for an alcoholic to drink.

Following this rule as an absolute--with no exceptions--has made the difference between a healthy life vs. being dead in the gutter, and/or perhaps killing other people while driving drunk.

When I heard about the translation rule and medical errors, I thought about it in the same way.

That's something NTs learn. Rules are not absolute. Along the way, they pick up that rules are created for different reasons, and some reasons are better than others. They pick up that rules are conditional.

"You should not do this!" is immediately followed by the question, "Why?" The response to this ranges from, "Because I said so!" to explaining the origins and reasons for the rule's existence. Often it is in the "why" that the exceptions are discovered. Other times it is in your relationship to the rule giver.

The subjectivity of supposedly "absolute" rules is a real devil!

A good example is the speed limit. At any time in good weather, a majority of people are violating the speed limit. Half the people don't know what the speed limit is or care. If the flow of traffic is 80 and the speed limit is 65, by not doing 80-ish, you create turbulence in traffic that decreases your own safety and those around you. Should I speed (behaving practically and safely) or should I slow (obeying the rule but being unsafe)? There is also an incredibly subjective rule against driving too slowly and becoming a traffic hazard.

Many times rules are written vaguely enough that you can't tell where prescribed behavior ends and permitted behavior begins. It is a way of discouraging you from doing things that are edgy but still legal.

It is also a way of allowing inconsistent enforcement. As a kid, I often wondered why some kids got away with stuff but if I tried it, I got punished. They were more likable, and that made the offense seem less important. The same could be applied to race. "Driving while black" is a real thing.

The only good advice I can give regarding rules is not to be the fastest car on the road. Or slowest. Unless you have a really good reason for it, stay in the middle of the pack.

 

[Kevin L.]

That's something NTs learn. Rules are not absolute. Along the way, they pick up that rules are created for different reasons, and some reasons are better than others. They pick up that rules are conditional.

"You should not do this!" is immediately followed by the question, "Why?" The response to this ranges from, "Because I said so!" to explaining the origins and reasons for the rule's existence. Often it is in the "why" that the exceptions are discovered. Other times it is in your relationship to the rule giver.

The subjectivity of supposedly "absolute" rules is a real devil!

A good example is the speed limit. At any time in good weather, a majority of people are violating the speed limit. Half the people don't know what the speed limit is or care. If the flow of traffic is 80 and the speed limit is 65, by not doing 80-ish, you create turbulence in traffic that decreases your own safety and those around you. Should I speed (behaving practically and safely) or should I slow (obeying the rule but being unsafe)? There is also an incredibly subjective rule against driving too slowly and becoming a traffic hazard.

Many times rules are written vaguely enough that you can't tell where prescribed behavior ends and permitted behavior begins. It is a way of discouraging you from doing things that are edgy but still legal.

It is also a way of allowing inconsistent enforcement. As a kid, I often wondered why some kids got away with stuff but if I tried it, I got punished. They were more likable, and that made the offense seem less important. The same could be applied to race. "Driving while black" is a real thing.

The only good advice I can give regarding rules is not to be the fastest car on the road. Or slowest. Unless you have a really good reason for it, stay in the middle of the pack.

Thank you, but how do I reconcile the idea of staying in the middle of the pack with the idea that "Just because other people don't do the right thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do the right thing."

Whenever I've been called on the carpet for doing something wrong, me saying "everybody else is doing it" accomplished nothing besides, perhaps, increasing whatever sanctions I had to endure.

So, my goal is to figure out which rules can be broken without using my co-workers as a model, since many people don't do their jobs.

It seems like a double-bind . . . I can't ask my employers which rules I can break, and co-workers will tell me whatever suits their agenda.

 

[Kevin L.]

There was an interesting court case that illustrates what I mean.

It's an absolute that people shouldn't drive drunk. It's against the law. Period.

This is a true story:

So, there's this guy drinking in a bar, and an argument breaks out between these bikers.

Because he's drunk, he asks the bartender to call him a cab.

Before the cab arrives, guns come out and shots are exchanged back and forth.

Terrified, the guy leaves the bar, dives into his car, and hauls ass . . . taking a few rounds in the back of his car.

My point is that he got busted a few blocks away and took a DWI.

The guy had proof of the gunfight and that he was in fear of his life (including the bullet holes in his car), and had proof that he called a cab.

In any case, the judge didn't care. It is an absolute that people shouldn't drive drunk, and there's no such thing as extenuating circumstances. The judge said he shouldn't have put himself in the situation to begin with, so the DUI was still his fault.

It gets even better.

Evidentally, some people have a condition where they get drunk without drinking because an intestinal yeast infection produces alcohol in the gut. This has led people with this syndrome to be charged with drunk driving (DUI), despite this medical diagnosis . . . and the judge still throws the book at them because there's no such thing as extenuating circumstances or an exception to the rules about driving drunk.

So, when I hear an absolute, I hear absolute.

See below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...kQFnoECA0QBQ&usg=AOvVaw1PZpwDxpqZP6_cS1pAI2WJ

 

[Au Naturel]

Thank you, but how do I reconcile the idea of staying in the middle of the pack with the idea that "Just because other people don't do the right thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do the right thing."

Whenever I've been called on the carpet for doing something wrong, me saying "everybody else is doing it" accomplished nothing besides, perhaps, increasing whatever sanctions I had to endure.

So, my goal is to figure out which rules can be broken without using my co-workers as a model, since many people don't do their jobs.

It seems like a double-bind . . . I can't ask my employers which rules I can break, and co-workers will tell me whatever suits their agenda.

The problem is that the right decisions in a given situation and obeying the rules aren't the same. I'm not suggesting you should have translated for them. You were in a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't situation, and there was no good way out. But balanced against that rule is the damage that might happen to the patient if you don't translate. Only you can make that decision.

This is why autism is a disability. Unemployment is far higher among autistic people of average intelligence than NTs of similar intelligence. Social rules and "unwritten rules" often dominate the workplace; written rules are often obeyed or disobeyed on a risk-to-benefit calculation, some people will get cut a lot of slack, and you won't get any. Maybe the boss favors his drinking partners. Those are the situations where autistic people are at a serious disadvantage. Sometimes you just have to accept the unfairness and move on.

Spent 40 years working in everything from field labor to aerospace to 6 years in the military, and the one thing I learned from all that is my job, my only job, is to keep the boss happy. That's what I'm being paid for, regardless of anything in the contract. I had to learn how to keep the boss happy without violating my own ethics or allowing a catastrophe to take place.

That's a tough school to attend. I was good enough never to get fired for cause, but I was also not good enough to get onto a promotion track. It was what it was.

 

[Au Naturel]

Technically you did everything correct and they did it to themselves. But...

So much time of a professional's day is engaging in CYA and the "rules" are there to ensure every student is constantly thinking about it. They don't want you to follow the rules one-hundred percent, but instead want you to always consider how every action could potentially be a liability to the institution.

With this in mind - plus the impetus to help the patient no matter what - we can forge a compromise so you and the hospital are covered and the patient can get help: tell them "I'm not a certified translator and therefore cannot translate in an official capacity. However, I will tell you what the patient says, and anything staff does with this information is on their individual judgement."

This way if anything bad happens to the patient the administering nurse or physician will be the one who didn't follow the rules by acting on an unofficial translation. You and the institution are covered. The official translator will still get paid because they will have to do the paperwork.

Likely, there won't be anything administered that is dangerous with just a casual translation. If you relay the patient says they are diabetic, no one is going to give them insulin based on that, but there are other things that can be done to help the patient before an official translator can be summoned. This is an example of the other person considering how their actions could potentially be a liability to the institution. Everyone works together to help people without putting themselves or the institution in an obvious actionable position.

Regardless, it is near impossible for a patient to win a malpractice suit. The law recognizes that professionals do the best they can in their area of practice and allows leeway for their personal judgement to determine best practices in most situations. Under this, ninety percent of success is the physician's intent...at least, their intent as stated on the deposition. If you ever get named on a law suit make sure you only comment through the hospital's attorneys and they'll take care of the rest.

Thank you very much.

I still have a problem with the idea of breaking the rules . . . even a little bit, as we're told things like "this is an absolute," "there are no grey areas", and my personal favorite: " It's better if something bad happens because you followed the rules than for something good to happen because you break the rules."

I have had problems with this my whole life (I recounted many examples in other threads).

Even so, your response contains a lot of constructive ideas, so thank you again.

Patient becomes severely ill or dies because there was no translator available. I'd feel like **** if that happened. Plus, there's a lawsuit any liability attorney would love to sink his teeth into.

Have to judge the seriousness of the situation. His life is more important than my job. If it is something minor, not so important.

If the situation is critical, I like the unofficial "Here's what I think he might be saying, but I could be wrong. So don't take this as an official translation." approach. "I don't know what he said, but I think there was something about a bottle of strychnine???"

 

[Au Naturel]

There was an interesting court case that illustrates what I mean.

It's an absolute that people shouldn't drive drunk. It's against the law. Period.

This is a true story:

So, there's this guy drinking in a bar, and an argument breaks out between these bikers.

Because he's drunk, he asks the bartender to call him a cab.

Before the cab arrives, guns come out and shots are exchanged back and forth.

Terrified, the guy leaves the bar, dives into his car, and hauls ass . . . taking a few rounds in the back of his car.

My point is that he got busted a few blocks away and took a DWI.

The guy had proof of the gunfight and that he was in fear of his life (including the bullet holes in his car), and had proof that he called a cab.

In any case, the judge didn't care. It is an absolute that people shouldn't drive drunk, and there's no such thing as extenuating circumstances. The judge said he shouldn't have put himself in the situation to begin with, so the DUI was still his fault.

It gets even better.

Evidentally, some people have a condition where they get drunk without drinking because an intestinal yeast infection produces alcohol in the gut. This has led people with this syndrome to be charged with drunk driving (DUI), despite this medical diagnosis . . . and the judge still throws the book at them because there's no such thing as extenuating circumstances or an exception to the rules about driving drunk.

So, when I hear an absolute, I hear absolute.

See below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...kQFnoECA0QBQ&usg=AOvVaw1PZpwDxpqZP6_cS1pAI2WJ

Not absolute. If he hadn't driven away, he might be dead. Rules are always followed under a cost-to-benefit ratio analysis. Wanting to stay alive is more absolute than not driving drunk.

And that judge is an (insert really nasty word here). Different judge, different ruling. Again, not absolute.

 

[Kevin L.]

Thank you all very much.

I found a lot here that I can take away that may help.

Thank you again.