Where is the autism talk at?

[MacLeod]

Genetic enhancement is forbidden in the Federation, not the correction of inherited genetic defects.

Yes but than you go down the rabbit hole of what is a defect. Is being 5 foot 6 a defect.

It greatly decreases your chance for an athletic career.

I would disagree with, as with many things there are advantages to being below average height as well as being above average height. In fact some sports favour short people just as some sports favour tall people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_in_sports

And yes I am on the short side.

 

[BillJ]

Genetic enhancement is forbidden in the Federation, not the correction of inherited genetic defects.

Yes but than you go down the rabbit hole of what is a defect. Is being 5 foot 6 a defect.

It greatly decreases your chance for an athletic career.

I would disagree with, as with many things there are advantages to being below average height as well as being above average height. In fact some sports favour short people just as some sports favour tall people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_in_sports

And yes I am on the short side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues

 

[T'Girl]

But she's still disabled by her environment.

A bit of semantics, but no, she was impaired by the environment she choose to place herself into. As I understand it, she wasn't disabled in her normal environment, the gravity of her species homeworld.

Look at it this way, if you hux were to put on scuba gear and go down into a body of water, would you at that point be "disabled?"

Strictly speaking, Melora wasn't disabled, she was perfectly normal.

The introduction of Melora as a character was another reason to applaud DS9.

There a aspect to the episode that drags it (and DS9 in genera)l down. Melora was in a wheel chair and no one around her called her out on the fact that she was acting like an absolute bitch.

According to DS9, that's how people in wheel chairs get to act.

That if you're "disabled" some rules of polite society automatically cease to apply to you. Melora had no mental defect that made her incapable of being polite, she simply choice not to be.

DS9 says she gets a pass.

K'Ehleyr was a Federation Ambassador.

K'ehleyr was just as much Human as she was Klingon, her loyalty (apparently) was to the people and society who raised her.

 

[hux]

A bit of semantics, but no, she was impaired by the environment she choose to place herself into. As I understand it, she wasn't disabled in her normal environment, the gravity of her species homeworld.

Look at it this way, if you hux were to put on scuba gear and go down into a body of water, would you at that point be "disabled?"

If I was just visiting, no but if I was compelled to live and work down there on a long term basis then yes, I would be disabled by the environment. Depends on your political viewpoint. Oliver's Social Model of Disability promotes a perspective that the psychical impairment is not the thing that disables an individual but rather it is the society that does. Should society address those issues then you are no longer disabled by said society.

In many ways, there are countless alien cultures that are being disabled by human-centric environments in Trek. Usually it's the Federation cultural influence but in this case, it's the actually environment disabling an individual. That makes it more analogous to disability politics of our societies which is why I find it more interesting.

Strictly speaking, Melora wasn't disabled, she was perfectly normal.

Again, depends on your political definition. If, for sample, society bent over backwards - both in terms of environment and cultural attitudes - to enable wheelchair users total equality within society then they too could be described as "perfectly normal" as the factors disabling then have been removed.

All you have to do now is define normal.

This is why I applaud DS9. It isn't a perfect or complete exploration of the disability issue but unlike other Trek shows, it has at least looked at it from a non-paradise point of view that had previously been ignored. DS9 has a very good track record of looking at the utopia and questioning if everyone is experiencing it in quite the same way.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Genetic enhancement is forbidden in the Federation, not the correction of inherited genetic defects.

We don't know that such a prohibition is a Federation one, instead it could be something that Earth applies to Humans, but other species don't have a similar prohibition. The Federation backs the prohibition on Human genetic alterations, but doesn't extend it to other Federation Members.

That is a needed correction, thank you. Earth (for obvious reasons) bans genetic enhancement, but there is not a blanket prohibition for the entire Federation. Some species have been portrayed in the novels as needing genetic enhancement to be sentient and able to join the interstellar community.

A species that is from a low gravity world would not be considered "defective" on an M-Class planet anymore than a human would be considered "defective" on a high gravity world.

 

[Autistoid]

Yes but than you go down the rabbit hole of what is a defect. Is being 5 foot 6 a defect.

It greatly decreases your chance for an athletic career.

I would disagree with, as with many things there are advantages to being below average height as well as being above average height. In fact some sports favour short people just as some sports favour tall people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_in_sports

And yes I am on the short side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues

That`s a load of nonsense, there are very few sports where being short is an advantage.

Referencing one outlier that is 6 inches below average, when a large portion of people in that sport are 6 inches taller than the average is statistical noise.

In most sports height is an advantage.

It`of course isn`t the only advantage, which is why not every athlete is 7 feet tall.

Also you have to factor in the size of your talent pool. Soccer for example has a talent pool of over 2 billion + people, specifically in countries like Brazil where the average height is shorter than is found in say the Netherlands.
However when combined with genetic traits relating to strength and endurance, these advantages are pretty much constant.

Genetics is a huge factor in professional sports, your not gonna make it into the major leagues with average genetics it simply does not happen.

 

[Autistoid]

A bit of semantics, but no, she was impaired by the environment she choose to place herself into. As I understand it, she wasn't disabled in her normal environment, the gravity of her species homeworld.

Look at it this way, if you hux were to put on scuba gear and go down into a body of water, would you at that point be "disabled?"

If I was just visiting, no but if I was compelled to live and work down there on a long term basis then yes, I would be disabled by the environment. Depends on your political viewpoint. Oliver's Social Model of Disability promotes a perspective that the psychical impairment is not the thing that disables an individual but rather it is the society that does. Should society address those issues then you are no longer disabled by said society.

In many ways, there are countless alien cultures that are being disabled by human-centric environments in Trek. Usually it's the Federation cultural influence but in this case, it's the actually environment disabling an individual. That makes it more analogous to disability politics of our societies which is why I find it more interesting.

Strictly speaking, Melora wasn't disabled, she was perfectly normal.

Again, depends on your political definition. If, for sample, society bent over backwards - both in terms of environment and cultural attitudes - to enable wheelchair users total equality within society then they too could be described as "perfectly normal" as the factors disabling then have been removed.

All you have to do now is define normal.

This is why I applaud DS9. It isn't a perfect or complete exploration of the disability issue but unlike other Trek shows, it has at least looked at it from a non-paradise point of view that had previously been ignored. DS9 has a very good track record of looking at the utopia and questioning if everyone is experiencing it in quite the same way.

Solid post.

Disabilties and advantages are largely ignored by society.

People really don`t like accepting that the world is incredibly fair.

It`s a really frustrating viewpoint when you realize how uneven the world is, by nearly every metric that one can imagine.

People react frustratingly by burying there hand in the sand.

The reality is gender, appearance, height, social skills, genetic traits like endurance, physical injuries, geography, culture, all have extreme impacts on ones status in life.

 

[MacLeod]

I would disagree with, as with many things there are advantages to being below average height as well as being above average height. In fact some sports favour short people just as some sports favour tall people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_in_sports

And yes I am on the short side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues

That`s a load of nonsense, there are very few sports where being short is an advantage.

Referencing one outlier that is 6 inches below average, when a large portion of people in that sport are 6 inches taller than the average is statistical noise.

In most sports height is an advantage.

It`of course isn`t the only advantage, which is why not every athlete is 7 feet tall.

Also you have to factor in the size of your talent pool. Soccer for example has a talent pool of over 2 billion + people, specifically in countries like Brazil where the average height is shorter than is found in say the Netherlands.
However when combined with genetic traits relating to strength and endurance, these advantages are pretty much constant.

Genetics is a huge factor in professional sports, your not gonna make it into the major leagues with average genetics it simply does not happen.

Well according to that article the following sports could favour shorter people

Artistic Gynmatics
Football (Association) NB: Position dependant
Cricket NB: Position Dependant
Cycling NB: Type of event
F1 (and no doubt by extension other single seater events)
Horse Racing
Shooting
Rugby League (Height not seen as important)


And other sports where your height can be both advantageous and disavandtageous. Reading the article it seems as if the sports which are dominant in the USA such as Baseball, Basketball, American Football and Ice Hockey seem to favour taller players.

Of course 5 6" is only slighlty below average height for a man (depending where in the world you are), admitedly once you get to far away from the average either way your options might get more limited.

 

[BillJ]

Genetics is a huge factor in professional sports, your not gonna make it into the major leagues with average genetics it simply does not happen.

Which is wrong, incredibly wrong. In the NFL, a league that prizes tall QB's, both Russell Wilson and Drew Brees (both six foot tall or under) have become stars.

Physical measurements play a part in a players success but so does the desire to succeed.

You should probably stay out of subjects that you obviously have no clue about.

 

[MacLeod]

Genetics is a huge factor in professional sports, your not gonna make it into the major leagues with average genetics it simply does not happen.

Which is wrong, incredibly wrong. In the NFL, a league that prizes tall QB's, both Russell Wilson and Drew Brees (both six foot tall or under) have become stars.

Physical measurements play a part in a players success but so does the desire to succeed.

You should probably stay out of subjects that you obviously have no clue about.

Well to be fair being 6" or so would likely be above average height, but I think you mean they are below average height for the sport.

But I think it would be fair to say some sports favour tall people whilst others favour shorter people and in some sports your height could determine the position you play in.

 

[BillJ]

Well to be fair being 6" or so would likely be above average height, but I think you mean they are below average height for the sport.

Yes.

But I think it would be fair to say some sports favour tall people whilst others favour shorter people and in some sports your height could determine the position you play in.

Of course, but there are no iron clad rules. Jared Lorenzen played back-up QB for the NY Giants and has a Super Bowl ring, yet was built like and offensive lineman.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAM3z69Ue44[/yt]

We see NFL teams fail all the time in the draft because they put too much stock in a player's height, weight and 40-yard dash time. Russell Wilson (whose 5'11") has won one Super Bowl, been to another yet was drafted in the third-round of the draft because teams said he was too short.

People seem so interested in trying to define a person based on their physical attributes and the world just doesn't work that way and never has.

 

[MacLeod]

^Oh I agree, and as I tried to highlight all height can do is influence which sports you might be better suited to. Doesn't mean someone who is way outside the norm for a particular sport can't do well in that sport. But perhaps they might have a harder time not for lack of ability but because soceity thinks that players in a particular sport need to be above/below average height.

And yes people try to define a person based on their physical atributes, but I would say that's exactly the way the world works, it shouldn't but it does. Not pretty enough, too pretty, too short, too tall, too fat, too skinny, wrong skin colour etc... Of course not everyone behaves in that way, and behaviours can and do change over time. But if you are with the average range you might notice these behaviours as they have little to no impact on how people react to you.

 

[Autistoid]

Genetics is a huge factor in professional sports, your not gonna make it into the major leagues with average genetics it simply does not happen.

Which is wrong, incredibly wrong. In the NFL, a league that prizes tall QB's, both Russell Wilson and Drew Brees (both six foot tall or under) have become stars.

Physical measurements play a part in a players success but so does the desire to succeed.

You should probably stay out of subjects that you obviously have no clue about.

Your not understanding what I'm saying.

Height isn't a determinant but it is sure as hell part of the equation.

Genetic composition of muscles, strength reflexes, metabolism are all other factors.

Having people of average height doesn't mean that it doesn't matter, it's simply incredibly rare for someone to have all the best qualities in one.

 

[JarodRussell]

Genetic enhancement is forbidden in the Federation, not the correction of inherited genetic defects.

Who determines what a defect is?

I bet it's the people who live on the beaches.

What about that DS9 episode with Melora who grew up on a planet with low gravity. As a consequence, she is disabled by the Earth based levels of gravity on the space station (levels that are conveniently suitable for countless other species.....hmmm).

Anyway, though not a defect by the standards of her native society, a defect by the standards of the society she has chosen to live in. So would she qualify for genetic correction under those circumstances (should such a procedure be available) or would that technically be viewed as an enhancement?

The PC level of this post is too high.

A human with just one arm and one leg clearly has a defect.

A human not being able to breath under water like a fish does not have a defect.

A human ONLY being able to breath under water is a mutation, so he's going to create a new category, from which you can derive new definitions of what a defect in that category is.



Going back to the original post... Starfleet Officers are supposed the cream of the crop with well trained hard and soft skills, and there highly probably is no place for autistic people on the bridge of a starship (which is the group of characters Star Trek focuses on) for exactly that reason. Just as you haven't seen officers in wheelchairs (Pike was retired, and Worf's career would have been over had they not fixed his back). Disabled and impaired people only work in Starfleet if their disability is compensated one way or the other (see Geordi's VISOR).

 

[hux]

The PC level of this post is too high.

No.

A human with just one arm and one leg clearly has a defect.

No.

They have a physical impairment and might also (but not necessarily) be disabled by their society.

Going back to the original post... Starfleet Officers are supposed the cream of the crop with well trained hard and soft skills, and there highly probably is no place for autistic people on the bridge of a starship (which is the group of characters Star Trek focuses on) for exactly that reason. Just as you haven't seen officers in wheelchairs (Pike was retired, and Worf's career would have been over had they not fixed his back). Disabled and impaired people only work in Starfleet if their disability is compensated one way or the other (see Geordi's VISOR).

What!?

We also haven't seen openly gay people on the bridge of a Starship. That doesn't mean we should infer that they aren't cut out for a such a position but rather that the writers of Star Trek simply lacked the courage of their (supposed progressive) convictions and failed to address the diversity of a society they claimed to be promoting. They were so busy patting themselves on the back for having a black receptionist on TOS thirty years ago, that they didn't notice how painfully conventional and parochial they had actually become.

DS9 did make some small attempt to look at these issues more thoroughly (and should be applauded for it) but it was all a bit too late by then.

 

[Autistoid]

Genetic enhancement is forbidden in the Federation, not the correction of inherited genetic defects.

Who determines what a defect is?

I bet it's the people who live on the beaches.

What about that DS9 episode with Melora who grew up on a planet with low gravity. As a consequence, she is disabled by the Earth based levels of gravity on the space station (levels that are conveniently suitable for countless other species.....hmmm).

Anyway, though not a defect by the standards of her native society, a defect by the standards of the society she has chosen to live in. So would she qualify for genetic correction under those circumstances (should such a procedure be available) or would that technically be viewed as an enhancement?

The PC level of this post is too high.

A human with just one arm and one leg clearly has a defect.

A human not being able to breath under water like a fish does not have a defect.

A human ONLY being able to breath under water is a mutation, so he's going to create a new category, from which you can derive new definitions of what a defect in that category is.
.

The opposite of PC is not illogic.

A defect is a trait that does not meet the expected needs of a system.

Needing two arms is only necessary if the system is designed to require two arms.

This is the irony of people that percieve disability optimism as some we can do it attitude.

The cold logical reality is many disabilities are defects only because the systems fail to account for different specializations.

If star trek is anything aproaching realistic, having diverse designs for different species is a reality of the federation.

 

[Autistoid]

They have a physical impairment and might also (but not necessarily) be disabled by their society.

It's important to remember that impairment more or less means that one may face resistance by choosing a specifc path.

Someone with one leg is not gonna find walking around the optimum path for getting around.

Does not mean this impairment carys over to computing skills etc.

 

[JWPlatt]

Humans have an abundance of variable traits that make them individually suitable for some tasks instead of others. 'Talent' is a word that sets apart one person from a group of others. Breathing is not a talent. Playing piano is. 'Merit' is what you have earned according to your talents. Missing arms and legs or a high strategic sense combined with command ability tends to segregate people into the best positions they choose or most naturally and easily fit. Overall, and cooperatively, we fill the necessary positions of a society according to what nature has given us or taken away. Some exceptional people do more with less. But to see the truth of it, you can't hold up the exceptions as a general rule.

We also haven't seen openly gay people on the bridge of a Starship.

Old argument. That is indeterminable without following them with a camera until we see them in a romantic context or multiple contexts if they are more sexually complex. I understand you mean that the *production* has not chosen to reveal a romantic context. But were we truly without prejudice, and the world were utterly fair, sexual orientation would be unremarkable. There have been plenty of people on the bridge who might be openly gay, but we just never saw many public displays of affection (PDA) there. Maybe the problem is that the acronym "PDA" even exists - as if they are a bad thing. Get people over their repressed attitudes about open affection and sexuality at the root of it, and get over sexual orientation.

 

[Autistoid]

Going back to the original post... Starfleet Officers are supposed the cream of the crop with well trained hard and soft skills, and there highly probably is no place for autistic people on the bridge of a starship (which is the group of characters Star Trek focuses on) for exactly that reason.

Irregardless of orientation, worf's soft skills were at a minimum in pretty much all of his career.

Also considering the number of people involved in physics and engineering that are clearly on the spectrum, I highly doubt they wouldn't succeed in a star trek environment.



But then again people pretty much refuse to acknowledge autism as anything other than a disability. Despite the fact that also resent research suggest that it may go under the radar in many successful people.

The entire structure of starfleet is ideal for someone on the spectrum.

A predictable and logical command structure, rational and reason being at the top of command structure.

That's ignoring very direct qualities that are very common in autistic people.

Honesty, a high sense of fairness, etc. (Autistic brains show a over arousal in the parts of the brain that deal with this.) Although were seen as socially inept it's likely with better education this will be far less of an issue in the future. A lot of soft skills have a lot to do with people's petty sensitivities, selfishness, dishonesty etc. The entire structure of TNG where everyone is "nice" suggest that behavior standards for federation officers would show a strong favoring to those qualities found in autistics.

Keeping in mind most autistic people that are successful are self taught. The education system is often a barrier to success for most people. A solid sign that a particular person is autistic is when they have to teach themselves.

So just as you wouldn't expect every regular person growing up outside of a western education standard, you wouldn't expect your average person on the spectrum to succeed either.

The fact that some overcome the odds says alot about the true possibilities, if education was more open to autistic learning styles.

 

[hux]

We also haven't seen openly gay people on the bridge of a Starship.

Old argument. That is indeterminable without following them with a camera until we see them in a romantic context or multiple contexts if they are more sexually complex. I understand you mean that the *production* has not chosen to reveal a romantic context. But were we truly without prejudice, and the world were utterly fair, sexual orientation would be unremarkable. There have been plenty of people on the bridge who might be openly gay, but we just never saw many public displays of affection (PDA) there. Maybe the problem is that the acronym "PDA" even exists - as if they are a bad thing. Get people over their repressed attitudes about open affection and sexuality at the root of it, and get over sexual orientation.

And the argument that it happens but we just don't see it is even older (and 68% more laughable).

How come we did get to see it with Geordie pursuing Leah Brahms, Picard with Vash, Troi with a Riker, Troi with Worf, Riker with numerous females, Okana with the entire female crew etc etc. They don't seem to have a problem showing any of this.

Hell, even Data had sex with a woman (because heterosexuality is so normal that even androids can do it).

Simple fact is, Trek gets a ridiculous amount of praise for its representations of diversity when it frankly has no right to.