As I was listening to an episode of "This American Life" today, my ears perked up to a story about a couple falling apart because the husband missed social cues, didn't listen well and in general acted very much like a stereotypical man. It seemed to be an extreme case and the wife just couldn't stand it and it was driving them apart.
Then the wife, Kristen, read a questionnaire that tested for Asperger's syndrome and noticed how closely the questions related to her husband, Dave. She had him take the test and turns out he did in fact have Asperger's and wasn't just being an insensitive man (a lot of wives are now testing their husbands with the same questionnaire). While I find the idea of women thinking their husbands have Asperger's because they follow socially accepted stereotypes that probably attracted them in the first place a bit odd, the story comes to a really interesting point.
Close to the end, after Dave has described his revelation of being diagnosed as a blessing in disguise, he starts to describe the changes he's made as a result as not truly being real. Since teaching himself the right social cues and the ability to listen, Kristen and his relationship has improved dramatically, but when asked if he really "feels" like he's doing the right thing at the right time or is truly listening, he says, "no".
He describes it less as an emotional response and more as an intellectual reaction. After studying his syndrome and understanding to cope with it, he mentally knows what to do and practices to become better at it. But, he doesn't "feel" in his gut that it's right. In a way, he's fighting his initial response and correcting for it.
Rather than get into what "normal" means in this situation and what "disorder" may imply, I want to delve into what this means in terms of our work lives.
When I got to this point of the story, I immediately thought of all the people I know who are happy doing the work they do and those that aren't. Comparing the two, I realized the ones that are happy are doing the work they "feel". What comes to them naturally. Their instinctual response towards math, history, engineering, economics, art, design, even management, gives them the ability to do the right thing at the right time (or at least what we judge to be "right" by current societal memes).
Not only do they "feel" it innately, they have also worked their intellect to understand the things they may have missed and in general to boost their knowledge of their chosen domain. They're not only "street" smart about it, they also took the time to become "book" smart.
The ones who aren't happy, or the ones who are searching for work that will make them happy, seem to be working at their jobs out of intellect, not necessarily feeling. They know how to do a job and like Dave in the story, they can react appropriately as the situation requires, but they don't necessarily "feel" that it's what they should do.
In a strict corporate atmosphere, for example, a phone call or meeting may have a very formal tone to it, with idioms and a general workflow that everyone's silently agreed upon. To some, this just comes naturally, whether through their upbringing or education or their general emotional reaction, they think this is how business should be done and do it. They're "naturals" (at a human-made game).
Others, having assimilated and studied corporate atmospheres, learn to fit in. They may not be doing this consciously, but whether it's survival instinct, peer pressure, or they haven't been introduced to any other type of work, they adapt. They sharpen their intellect to assess and understand the situation, but they don't necessarily "feel" like what they're doing is what they want to do.
That rift, between what they want and what they feel they should do, is what I believe makes them unhappy. This isn't to say they aren't good at what they do. In fact, some may be better than the "naturals". But, if they've taught themselves to react against their instinct, the charade can only go on so long before they crash under the subconscious pressure.
"Feeling" something's right and intellectually understanding its right may not matter in terms of job effectiveness, but it may in terms of job satisfaction.
Then the wife, Kristen, read a questionnaire that tested for Asperger's syndrome and noticed how closely the questions related to her husband, Dave. She had him take the test and turns out he did in fact have Asperger's and wasn't just being an insensitive man (a lot of wives are now testing their husbands with the same questionnaire). While I find the idea of women thinking their husbands have Asperger's because they follow socially accepted stereotypes that probably attracted them in the first place a bit odd, the story comes to a really interesting point.
Close to the end, after Dave has described his revelation of being diagnosed as a blessing in disguise, he starts to describe the changes he's made as a result as not truly being real. Since teaching himself the right social cues and the ability to listen, Kristen and his relationship has improved dramatically, but when asked if he really "feels" like he's doing the right thing at the right time or is truly listening, he says, "no".
He describes it less as an emotional response and more as an intellectual reaction. After studying his syndrome and understanding to cope with it, he mentally knows what to do and practices to become better at it. But, he doesn't "feel" in his gut that it's right. In a way, he's fighting his initial response and correcting for it.
Rather than get into what "normal" means in this situation and what "disorder" may imply, I want to delve into what this means in terms of our work lives.
When I got to this point of the story, I immediately thought of all the people I know who are happy doing the work they do and those that aren't. Comparing the two, I realized the ones that are happy are doing the work they "feel". What comes to them naturally. Their instinctual response towards math, history, engineering, economics, art, design, even management, gives them the ability to do the right thing at the right time (or at least what we judge to be "right" by current societal memes).
Not only do they "feel" it innately, they have also worked their intellect to understand the things they may have missed and in general to boost their knowledge of their chosen domain. They're not only "street" smart about it, they also took the time to become "book" smart.
The ones who aren't happy, or the ones who are searching for work that will make them happy, seem to be working at their jobs out of intellect, not necessarily feeling. They know how to do a job and like Dave in the story, they can react appropriately as the situation requires, but they don't necessarily "feel" that it's what they should do.
In a strict corporate atmosphere, for example, a phone call or meeting may have a very formal tone to it, with idioms and a general workflow that everyone's silently agreed upon. To some, this just comes naturally, whether through their upbringing or education or their general emotional reaction, they think this is how business should be done and do it. They're "naturals" (at a human-made game).
Others, having assimilated and studied corporate atmospheres, learn to fit in. They may not be doing this consciously, but whether it's survival instinct, peer pressure, or they haven't been introduced to any other type of work, they adapt. They sharpen their intellect to assess and understand the situation, but they don't necessarily "feel" like what they're doing is what they want to do.
That rift, between what they want and what they feel they should do, is what I believe makes them unhappy. This isn't to say they aren't good at what they do. In fact, some may be better than the "naturals". But, if they've taught themselves to react against their instinct, the charade can only go on so long before they crash under the subconscious pressure.
"Feeling" something's right and intellectually understanding its right may not matter in terms of job effectiveness, but it may in terms of job satisfaction.