4 ms·
If the test of a person being employable is that they keep their condition to themselves, then it's mental illness. You can't ask for accommodations for mental
by perl4ever 5y ago
If the test of a person being employable is that they keep their condition to themselves, then it's mental illness. You can't ask for accommodations for mental illness, is my definition. No matter what the rules on paper.
Different workplaces have different tolerances for people who seem unstable; for instance, if someone bursts into tears, are they pressured out? It varies.
Schizophrenia has nothing to do with psychopathy, sociopathy, multiple personalities, or anything you've seen in the movies, by the way.
- guerrilla 5y ago> You can't ask for accommodations for mental illness, is my definition. No idea what you're talking about because obviously you can.
- perl4ever 5y agoI'm probably not in disagreement with you about any facts regarding mental illness and tolerance thereof in the workplace. It's more about definitions of words. I think it's useful to define mental illness as those conditions where you can't take advantage of your rights on paper; where the proof that you are coping adequately is always and forever that you are not sharing much if anything - mostly coping with symptoms while at work is not enough. Schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. It's very clearly shown in this thread why these are different from conditions people are free to talk about. Most people can't imagine that someone with the above conditions can be employable, especially as a knowledge worker, whereas Aspergers/autism has become a cliche used to stereotype programmers in general. There is no way to enforce a law that says people shall trust others regardless of their personal judgement. So there is no equalizing the privileges that some "neurodiverse" people have and others do not.