Additional Q&A with our panelists

Johnathan Flowers: Neurodiversity is not purely a human thing as other species evidence a variety of biophysical organizations, including neurological organizations. Now, one thing that we should make clear is that neurodiversity is one way that humans are in nature through culture: it is how we make sense of one possibility of nature through our cultural context. In this way, neurodiversity might be a “purely human thing,” as it is anchored in the human experience. So, I would advise caution in describing non-human entities as “neurodiverse” except in a purely descriptive mode.

As for the question regarding machine learning and AI, our existing approaches are massively problematic for a variety of reasons. As an example, many machine learning projects are leveraged to “identify” neurodiversity through facial recognition which is both pseudoscientific and a re-enactment of phrenology through new technologies. This is a more problematic way of engaging with neurodiversity through AI and ML

That said, I believe your question focuses on understanding AI and Machine Learning through neurodiversity. To this I would say that our existing approaches to AI and ML seek to replicate a neurotypical mind as the neurotypical mind is assumed to be the paradigmatic example of the mind to be replicated through technology. In contrast, I would argue that the extension of neurodiversity and neurotypicality to the sphere of AI and ML is a mistaken assumption as the “minds” that emerge from technological platforms are not human minds with human embodiments, so an understanding of human neurodiversity would be inapplicable.

That said, AI and ML could learn a lot from interacting with neurodiverse individuals, especially commercial AI and ML platforms. A basic example might be auto-correct or recommendation software which attempts to predict the next word or what a user is searching for. These can be valuable for folks with ADHD as they can supplement our executive functioning; however, they can be problematic as they are not designed with neurodiverse individuals in mind which results in unique ways of transacting with the AI or ML.

Sam Farmer: The better way, in my opinion, is to be who you are throughout the hiring process, open up about what you are good at and not so good at, explain how you can best be of value to the workplace and to take your services elsewhere if the hiring people give you a hard time or look down on you for being who you are.

Johnathan Flowers: The better way might be to adapt the processes themselves to neurodiversity in a general sense. That is, these processes should be informed by disability studies and other disability advocates and experts such that the question of access does not arise. Right now hiring processes assume a neurotypical white male as the “default” applicant and therefore require applicants to request accommodations: if these processes abandoned this assumption, this would open up new ways of determining who is the best “fit” for a position.

Sam Farmer: Some agree with me, others don’t, but I choose not to view my challenges or my autism spectrum diagnosis as disabilities. Instead, I accept them as being intrinsic to who I am. All of us, to varying extents, whether neurotypical or neurodiverse, require support in some areas and are strong in other areas. I feel it is important to assess what your strengths are and where you require support so that you are able to set the proper expectations with your colleagues.  

Caroline Connell: I have mixed feelings about the term “disability” for high-functioning autism. I agree with Sam in that autism is just a part of who I am, and it’s a helpful label to describe my quirks to others. I consider myself diverse, not disabled. However, I will check the “disability” box knowing that those around me interpret neurodiversity differently, and I do not question others’ decisions on how to self-identify.

Johnathan Flowers: There is something to be said about using the term “disability” insofar as it grants us access to particular rights under the ADA and within other institutional structures. In this, it is a useful way of identifying oneself, but I think your question gets at a different kind of issue: how do we relate to disability as an identity when the social organization of disability implies that we are “less able” to function in the world. This is a question of the social meaning of the word and how that word is used broadly in the world.

For me, I typically view my “disability” as a distinction in how I transact with the world and the things in it. I process information differently and because I process information differently, I reach different conclusions than my colleagues. At the same time, because I operate within social and institutional structures that do not recognize this difference, the structures themselves become barriers to my way of being in the world. So, for me, it is not that I am “disabled” inherently, but that the structures of society make it more difficult for me to move through society. As such, I find my neurodiversity to be a source of strength, but also something that reveals the limits of the organization of our society.

Caroline Connell: The topics you mention are more meaningfully discussed if there are a variety of viewpoints present. The personal, educational, and philosophical approaches of people with autism vary, just like they vary among the broader population. Deliberately shutting out voices risks alienating those who need information the most, and risks reducing “panel discussions” to speeches in an echo chamber. Instead, we should have civil, open discussions about polarizing issues.

Johnathan Flowers: I think this very much depends on the objectives of the event. Is your event aimed to provide an academic perspective on neurodiversity? Is it aimed to develop resources for neurodiversity? Is it aimed to inform about neurodiversity? Different kinds of events require different kinds of skills to ensure their success, and organizers need to recognize that not every neurodiverse advocate or person will be right for their event.

That said, if organizers want to be true to the aim of their events, then I would recommend that organizers educate themselves on the subject of their event FIRST, and then seek out voices. While it might extend the planning time, organizers should take the time to interview and speak with prospective speakers and panelists to ensure that the language used and the understanding of neurodiversity aligns with the objectives of the event.

Sam Farmer: I thought long and hard before adding Autism Speaks to my website for these same reasons. Autistics absolutely do not need to be “fixed” and so that is one aspect of Autism Speaks’ philosophy with which I strongly disagree. My decision to ultimately add them stemmed from things I have seen them do which I approve of. A few examples: Autism Speaks supporting sensory-friendly musical theatre productions which my own son, who is autistic, greatly appreciated; Autism Speaks TV commercials I have seen showing a neurotypical kid reaching out to an autistic kid on the sidelines and inviting her to join in on the fun at the playground (gestures of inclusivity like this one strongly resonate with me); including information on their website which I found to be helpful as I was researching police interactions with autistic individuals for an article I wrote on the subject. Sometimes it makes sense to look past the objections and disagreements and acknowledge what is worthwhile. The optimist in me allows me to do that!

Caroline Connell: I’m not sure if I understand your question, but I have a thought or two. I promote a big-tent-with-rules approach. Sharing a common pro-social goal is one of the best, if not the best, way to bring diverse populations together. Perhaps someone who doesn’t understand your frame might have something unexpected to offer. But civility must be enforced!

Johnathan Flowers: This is a great question and I really think that it starts with resisting the narrative, the “mythoi” or organizing principle, behind the initiative. That is, many of the initiatives and pipelines you’re referring to seem to act as a form of pseudo-containment for disabled people, a kind of neo-liberal variation on the concept of “special education,” when they should be considering how disabled people bring a unique perspective on a given subject, field, or experience.

Now, I see the political value in pipelines as providing resources that might not otherwise be available to disabled people; however, a pipeline serves to move something from one location to another without deviation. Instead of pipelines which force disabled people into fields where the organizing principle assumes our disability will be made “productive” or “valuable,” we might consider how these resources might be better used to allow disabled people to fully explore a variety of fields through their disability such that new possibilities emerge, new ways of understanding are born from our interactions.

That said, I would say that we need to resist the narratives that organize these pipelines and sheltered programs first because, in my view, they engage in a kind of dehumanization through deciding for us what we should be. Instead, we might pose the question of how the resources used for these pipelines can be deployed to enable disabled people the freedom to choose for themselves what they want to do.

Finally, one mode of resistance might be to ask these well meaning “allies” if they’re interested in our happiness and flourishing, or if they’re only interested in allowing us to flourish on their terms.

Johnathan Flowers: The first thing I would say is that the view that a disability is advantageous for some kinds of work and not others is grounded in a model that keeps abled people center. That is, you are welcome in a space if and only if your disability provides a benefit to the space. Your presence is then conditional on how you return the “gift” of access through the benefits provided by your disability. This is a massively problematic way of going about including disabled people in an organization.

That said, I would say that the form your advocacy takes depends on the kinds of needs you have or what your objective is. You might emphasize the medicalization of your disability and the ways that it is managed as indications that it does not impair your ability to be in the space. You might also choose not to disclose the breadth of your disability, or only disclose enough about your disability to make clear that you need accommodations. I think a lot of how you frame your disability structures your own advocacy.

As a final note, I think the core of your question has to do with resisting broader narratives about disability that distort common understandings of what means to be disabled. If we think about it this way, our advocacy becomes two-fold: resisting these narratives, and requesting changes to the space so we can simply exist. Depending on your needs, one might take priority over the other, or they might influence one another. I’m sorry I don’t have better advice here.

Sam Farmer: I navigate/mitigate stigma, career and culture by embracing and being who I am, pushing my way forward through all of the BS that has been thrown at me and at neurodiverse people in general, and by holding on to my understanding that in being who I am, I will never be able to satisfy everybody, I will win sometimes and lose other times, and that all of this is fine because all of it is intrinsic to being human. With that said, I had to work very hard for decades on building my self-esteem in order to arrive at this philosophy. I built up my self-esteem by living life and learning along the way, having learned many lessons the hard way which helped them stick, by bringing my inflated expectations of myself and others down to Earth and by seeking help from my parents and from many clinicians in addressing the challenges I wanted to address. It has also helped that I was raised to be an optimist. I would also say that it has helped that I am a white male, and it pains me to say that these traits have put me at an advantage, having always wanted for all of us to be playing on a level playing field.

Caroline Connell: My main uncertainty is whether to disclose, as I’ve had autism used against me to dismiss ethical and professional concerns as “being too nit-picky.” My advice is to know and trust that those around you know your value and have your best interests at heart before disclosing. And to have someone who knows you well to bounce social questions off of.

Johnathan Flowers: One of the things that has helped me is learning the institutional structures of accommodation in the space that I am in. That is, I do my research on how the space has provided support for neurodiverse individuals, and in what ways that it has failed to do so, and I view this information in light of my unique needs. This allows me to ask specifically for what I need within the context of the institution that I’m participating in. A laser guided request can, occasionally, cut right through the kinds of red-tape that we experience as neurodiverse individuals.

That said, how I respond to the stigmas associated with my ADHD vary depending on the context that I’m in. In Philosophy, for example, ADHD is commonly viewed as a sign that I am inherently unable to perform the kinds of mental work required of philosophers. Put another way, because my ADHD has been stigmatized in specific ways, it is viewed as a deficiency in my ability to reason in the ways valued by philosophers. While this is not the case, as demonstrated by my PhD, it is something I struggle with.

In response, I try to create my own space within philosophy. That is, if philosophy demands that I do something in one way, I try to adapt that methodology to something that works for the ways that I am in the world. Further, I do not disclose my disability unless it is relevant to the context of my work. Sometimes self-disclosure works valuably for me (for example, to make students more comfortable), other times it allows me to intervene in different situations. In other times I actively use my understanding of my disability to displace existing assumptions and stigmas. I challenge these perspectives when they emerge and where they emerge, though this may not be the most appropriate way to do this for every situation.

In the end, I would suggest developing a comprehensive knowledge of the kinds of support you need, building a network of individuals who support and understand you, and understanding the institutional and cultural limits of your spaces. Sometimes the spaces we occupy most often lack the means to support us and we need to seek support elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with recognizing a space that was not meant for your survival and does not nourish your growth; however, in recognizing the nature of such spaces, I would look outside of them.

Sam Farmer: I have not, although I do have a thought to share with respect to this notion of “fixing the individual”. There is an important distinction to be made between “fixing” and “assisting.” There is also a distinction between society telling a neurodiverse individual that something is wrong with him/her which therefore must be fixed vs. a neurodiverse individual wanting to address a particular challenge(s) and seeking assistance which helps him/her do so. As an autistic individual, nobody who says I need to be fixed will ever get under my skin and convince me of that. I am also grateful for all of the assistance I have been very fortunate to receive over the years which helped me address various challenges and grow as a result. The clinicians and medications which have assisted me never tried to fix me. Rather, I sought out these clinicians and took the medication recommended to me when I was ready to do so, in my own time and on my terms. Some challenges warrant assistance, others can be accepted as is and not warrant help/assistance. It is up to the individual to decide which of his/her challenges fall into each of these two categories.

Johnathan Flowers: This depends entirely on what you mean by “celebrate.” If by “celebrate,” you mean devices that recognize our neurodiversity and then leverage it to allow us to interact with the world in ways more comfortable for us, then I’ve seen plenty. For example, I have seen etsy designs for spikes which can be attached to the handles of wheelchairs to prevent the unwanted experience of being pushed without consent. I have seen medicine caps which incorporate timers to prevent us from taking more of our medications than we should. Even things like “dark mode” on applications function in this way.

That said, there are a number of innovators who are trying to incorporate aesthetics into our assistive technologies which bridges the gap between assistive technologies and fashion, which can be taken as a mode of celebration. Ironically, one of the best examples of an assistive technology which “celebrates” a disability are glasses. While we’re not often used to thinking of glasses as assistive technologies, the ways that glasses transform an assistive technology into a statement about a person, a form of style, can be viewed as a kind of celebration that doesn’t attempt to “fix” the disabled person.

Johnathan Flowers: I don’t know of any research that speaks to this specifically, but there is an emerging body of research that suggests neurodiverse individuals may arrive at novel conclusions to problems through their neurodiversity. Now, I would say that this is a result of neurodiverse people having different transactions with the world and the problems in it and it is only our exclusion from creative spaces (broadly defined) that makes these unique contributions surprising.

I would also be wary of such research as it can contribute to narratives like the “autistic savant,” wherein neurodiversity is privileged fo what it “brings to the table” so to speak, and not because there are creative people who happen to be neurodiverse.

Sam Farmer: I agree. No one should ever have to share or disclose their disability. This should be a matter of choice in my opinion. Disclose only if you are comfortable doing so. In other words, be who you are, nothing more, nothing less. The choice is yours alone and attempts by others to impose their choice on you should be discarded if at all possible. With that being said, the decision to disclose or not to do so will have consequences, just as all actions and words have consequences. So yes, there absolutely are complexities involved with respect to the uncertainties around assessing what the fallout from disclosing or not disclosing may be. Will those to whom you disclose discriminate against you once they know or will they continue to respect who you are and/or admire you for your courage in sharing this aspect of who you are? Will you be marginalized or not? With respect to the workplace, will others start to trust you less with certain tasks or will they trust you just the same? And if you don’t disclose, might you end up missing out on accommodations to which you are entitled, or not? The complexity lies in these uncertainties, as I see it.

Sam Farmer: Those who believe in eugenics believe that humanity should reproduce in a way that strives to eliminate what they view as “undesirable traits” en route to an “improved” human race. Regrettably, among those who believe in eugenics, disabilities commonly attributed to neurodiverse individuals fall under the “undesirable trait” category. Conversely, if you believe in neurodiversity, as I do, you believe that neurodiverse individuals reflect the normal range of human behavior, do not need to be “fixed” or “cured” and therefore should not be looked upon as being aberrant, undesirable or worthy of elimination. In other words, the neurodiversity movement/frame of mind and eugenics are directly at odds with each other because the former is inclusive and the latter is so extremely exclusive as to be criminal. The Nazis espoused eugenics and used it as a justification for the Holocaust. 

Sam Farmer: I think this depends on the personalities of those who are in a position to either include or exclude somebody who is neurodiverse. To some people, a label carries lots of weight whereas to other people, a label might be meaningless. I am very critical of those who use only a label as a basis for whether to include or exclude others.  There is so much more to a person than how he/she is labeled by others. I personally put the most stock in the content of an individual’s character, who she is, how she conducts herself, how she treats me, herself and others around her, and what’s inside. External appearances and labels are less important to me.

Sam Farmer: Nobody can stop a person from pursuing an education and his dreams. NOBODY! If there are people in the school community who are trying to get in the way, hopefully there is a teacher, counselor or administrator whom your son feels he can trust who could advocate for him with the goal of addressing the problem. You can advocate for your son as well. Furthermore, your son’s passion for STEM can be cultivated outside of school. If the school is failing to meet your son’s needs with respect to STEM, and if this problem is too daunting to be effectively addressed at school, it’s probably time to look elsewhere for fulfillment.