Journalist/developer. Storytelling developer @ USA Today Network. Builder of @HomicideWatch. Sinophile for fun. Past: @frontlinepbs @WBUR, @NPR, @NewsHour.
2133 stories
·
45 followers

‘I came out as autistic. Everyone said: That explains a lot’

2 Shares

The first time Facebook tried to sell me an autism test, it seemed presumptuous. I’d wondered about it, of course. But I couldn’t be autistic. Someone would have spotted it. Like one of those doctors I was taken to as a baby to work out why I hated to be held. Or my parents, who read books about families fighting to cure their sons of a devastating affliction. That wasn’t me, was it? I was productive. I was successful. I wasn’t disabled.

I did not take an autism test that day. But I did take a call from my mother at lunchtime. We chatted about how Instagram was always trying to sell her the oddest things. “I know,” I chuckled, “Facebook thinks I’m autistic!”

There was a silence. ‘‘I was wondering if we’d ever have this conversation,” said Mum.

That conversation was the lipstick on the collar of the life I thought I’d been leading. I found more evidence between the lines of school reports, college transcripts, breakup letters. In an old photo sent to me by a family friend, where she and her sister are smiling for the camera on my mother’s lap, it takes a second to spot myself in the photo, quivering in a ball of malfunctioning-five-year old.

What do we know about autism? We know it’s a form of cognitive difference that is also a disability – and how disabling it is depends as much on your social circumstances as it does on your symptoms. For as long as records have been kept, a small percentage of the species has been meaningfully different to other people and meaningfully similar to each other. We are odd, obsessive and socially oblivious. We find the world noisy, intense, overwhelming. Some of us struggle to speak and care for ourselves; some of us have extreme fixations or unusual talents. I have an uncanny ability not only to remember the lyrics of every song I’ve ever heard but to repeat them at the least socially appropriate moment.

Doctors began to classify autism as a condition in the 1930s, when there was something of a vogue for eliminating human difference. Up until the early 00s, most researchers blamed parents. But autism is not caused by bad parenting or heavy metal poisoning or vaccines. It’s largely genetic. And there’s no known “cure”, although most research funding is still funnelled into finding one, the focus being on fixing disabled people, not helping us.

After a recent surge in diagnosis, it is believed about 2% of the population has significant autistic traits. There are about as many of us as there are twins or natural redheads. Critics bemoan an “epidemic” of “overdiagnosis”, but over time, the number of people with autistic traits has stayed pretty consistent. What has changed is how many of us know. So many that there’s now a standard way to tell the rest of this story. I’m supposed to reassure you with an upbeat tale of self-acceptance. Instead I’m going to make things awkward and tell the truth.

‘Facebook thinks I’m autistic,’ I said to my mum. There was a silence

From an early age, I was obviously different. I was an intense, spooky, undersized child who refused to come out from under the table. But in the 1990s, I lacked one of the major qualifiers for diagnosis – a penis.

The stereotypical autistic person is still a white man who solves crimes with science. Even today, autistic men are more likely to grow up understanding they have a problem, whereas autistic women and non-binary people learn we are a problem. Most of the recent surge in adult diagnosis is in adult women who were missed as children. The standard excuse for this is that women and girls are “better at masking”. But autism is not, in my experience, an invisible condition. It is an illegible condition. When an autistic woman does not read as autistic, she rarely reads as ordinary. She reads as insane or perhaps evil. I spent decades worrying that I was both.

The first time I can remember getting smacked in the face by a classmate for thinking I was special, I was six. But I learned I could compensate for my oddness by racking up achievements. If I worked hard, I’d get to be gifted rather than just freakish. At no point did I think anyone else, disabled or otherwise, was worthless if they weren’t accomplished, just that I wasn’t like other people.

Years later, as I waited to take the actual autism test, I was still telling myself how lucky I was. Obviously, I had the good sort of autism. The sort that gets called “high-functioning”, which means nobody has to worry about looking after you. The sort where one day, if you’re lucky, Benedict Cumberbatch might play you in a film. As long as you work hard, win prizes and hide all the parts of you that aren’t polished and productive.

But the older you get, the harder it is to mask. For years, I scrupulously avoided every situation where someone might see me overwhelmed by sound, stammering and struggling with keys and cutlery. Noisy pubs. Office jobs. Long-term relationships. I spent years living out of suitcases to avoid managing a household. I hoarded little jackets for every conceivable social situation. I dyed my hair shocking pink, partly to make my ambient strangeness seem intentional, like framing a crack in the wall. I was always friendly, never angry, and carried on racking up achievements to compensate for the fact I was, on some fundamental level, broken. None of it was enough. People could always tell. Studies have shown that children begin to identify and punish autistic traits from a young age. Human beings reinforce social norms by hurting people who break them.

A memory: I’m eight years old. It’s assembly and a teacher I don’t know turns round in his chair and screams that I’m the rudest girl in the school. I stand there, frozen, as the laughter starts. I know this tweedy, angry man is right. I know I’m exhausting and embarrassing and disgusting, although I never find out what I’ve done this time, because of what happens next. I notice the teacher has big bags under his red-rimmed eyes. I’ve read that this means he’s tired, sad or sick. The solution is obvious. In front of the whole school, I pat his arm and say: “Are you OK?”

Anxious to understand where I was going wrong, I studied the maxims of children’s TV, where cartoon mice and puppet dinosaurs insisted it was OK to be strange. It didn’t occur to me that the singing dinosaur would lie, so I was confused as to why I kept getting bullied.

For me, the real value of my autism diagnosis isn’t understanding myself. It’s understanding other people. It turns out you lot are constantly emotionally resonating at a frequency I just can’t hear. It turns out that, actually, most people are uncomfortable around social difference and get considerably less comfortable when you point it out.

When I started to discuss my diagnosis with friends, I was expecting at least some surprise. Gosh, they’d say, we’d never have guessed. You’re so slick and put-together. You must have a lot of little jackets. And then I could show them my collection. In fact, there’s been a pretty even split between “That explains a lot” and “Wait, you didn’t know?”

One of the most autistic things I’ve ever done is believe it would be straightforward to come out as autistic. Six months after I tried to show a person I loved my real, unmasked self, I was decisively divorced. Soon after that, for the first time in front of colleagues, I had the sort of shutdown where everyone sees you stammer and twitch and retreat behind your eyes – and the gig was up. My bosses told me my work was wonderful and I shouldn’t worry. I was fired the next day.

Modern culture congratulates itself on “autism acceptance” with the confidence of a lying lying cartoon dinosaur. The reality of stigma and social shame is exactly why my friends and family avoided talking about my autism for so long. Discretion was supposed to protect me. But it rarely does. In fact, neurodivergent people face just as much ostracism and violence when we don’t reveal our diagnoses. I’ve been incredibly lucky; not everyone with my symptoms is able to work and live independently. But how many more of us could if we were met halfway by a culture that actually values human difference?

Read the whole story
acdha
3 hours ago
reply
Washington, DC
chrisamico
6 hours ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

What to Know about Death By Lightning Series: Cast, Release Date, News - Netflix Tudum

1 Share

You're one step away from exclusive interviews, behind-the-scenes content, bonus videos and more.

Read the whole story
chrisamico
4 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

The Truth About Default Gold Warriors

1 Share

In 2025 so far across 48 open tournaments, the IBJJF has given out approximately 25,000 (9,300 gold, 7,357 silver and 8,324 bronze) medals to juvenile, adult, and masters competitors, which surely you have noticed all over Facebook and Instagram. What you might not see though, is that more than a third (8,312) of those medals were given when the participant either had no matches (default gold) or lost their only match (default silver or bronze).

Now, I’m not here to de-merit the guy who posts about getting silver in a two-man division. This is just a data project illustrating where all the medals are going.

There are a lot of default medals in the masters divisions.

74 percent of all default medals were awarded in the masters categories, where divisions tend to be smaller.

More than a quarter of all masters division gold medals were single person divisions or divisions where two competitors signed up but only one showed up. 39 percent of masters silver medals were awarded for losing one match, and half of all masters bronze medals were awarded for losing one match.

By sheer numbers, black belts are picking up the most default medals.

One way of looking at the data is by raw numbers, although this might also approximate division sizes. There simply are not that many masters 4, 5 or 6 female athletes, so they naturally didn’t collect as many default medals. Generally, there is a tendency of more default golds in the black belt divisions, where there are usually also more athletes.

Female athletes are getting more default golds.

Another way to slice the data is by percentage. So, of all the gold medals earned this year so far, what percentage of them were snagged without a match taking place? Women in almost every category were more likely to stay in single athlete divisions or show up to a two person division where the other athlete no-showed.

There are just a lot of medals out there.

For a little perspective, every IBJJF tournament offers registration across 95 adult divisions and 665 masters divisions. You can do this math on your own — 9 and 10 weight divisions for female and male athletes (including open class) x 7 age divisions (adult, masters 1-7) x 5 belt color levels (white through black). Not every division has participants, but that’s a maximum of 760 divisions x 4 medals per division, or up to 3040 medals per tournament.

In reality, a major tournament like the IBJJF Europeans handed out around 2,000 medals. A regular IBJJF open tournament (Atlanta Winter, Virginia Summer, etc) might hand out on average around 500 medals.

In any given open, we’re looking at around an average of 50 default gold medals, and another 130 silver and bronze medals that were won without winning a match.

Why would anyone collect a default gold medal anyway?

There are a couple logistical reasons someone might show up for their free medal.

  • In the colored belts, being on the podium qualifies you for open class, where you can get more matches.

  • A gold medal earns your 27 points for your weight division and 40.5 points for your overall IBJJF ranking, which affects your seeding at future tournaments.

  • At adult black belt, you need those points to qualify for Pans and Worlds

That being said, the IBJJF offers a full refund if you’re alone in your division by check day, so you have to do the personal math if the above reasons are worth your 130-170 USD registration fee. Plus, Instagram clout!

If you want to earn gold by winning, you’ll probably have to win two matches.

When we take a look at the distribution of gold medals this year, most of them were won after one or two matches. In bigger divisions at open tournaments, some will require three wins (up to 8 people in the bracket) but rarely more than that.

A lot more people sign up for grand slam tournaments, and a big one like Pans might be the first time a competitor has to shift from winning two matches to winning three or four matches to win. Adult male colored belt divisions might have to win up to six matches for gold, and many of the masters male black belt divisions have to win up to five. One lucky guy in adult male blue feather fought a record (this year) of seven matches in his division to win gold at Europeans.

This might have implications on how you train for a major tournament. Even if an athlete can win multiple opens taking out one or two opponents at a time, they’ll need double the mental and physical grit to do it against three to five opponents on the same day at a major.

About the data

Thanks to Will Weisser and IBJJF Elo Rankings for providing the match data for this project. IBJJFRankings.com ranks competitors and provides a comprehensive database of matches in events run by the International Braziliation Jiu-Jitsu Federation. It is an independent site and are not affiliated with the IBJJF.

Support my work

These articles take me an average of 10 to 12 hours to analyze data, make charts, and write. If you would like to support me, please check out my jiujitsu sticker shop.

Thanks for reading The Grappler's Watch! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.



Read the whole story
chrisamico
12 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

PhD Timeline

3 Comments and 14 Shares
Rümeysa Öztürk was grabbed off the street in my town one month ago.
Read the whole story
chrisamico
14 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete
3 public comments
jlvanderzwan
14 days ago
reply
It's depressing how many people go through life with an "I don't see the problem, *I'm* not a witch" attitude
wyeager
17 days ago
reply
Thank you, Randall. The state of things is not sane and we all need to be speaking up. Bravo.
Blur Area
alt_text_bot
17 days ago
reply
Rümeysa Öztürk was grabbed off the street in my town one month ago.
Tazio
17 days ago
Boo hoo! A Hamas sympathizer has to leave the USA. I'm so sad.
rtreborb
17 days ago
Oh how far xkcd has drifted...
mxm23
17 days ago
Um due process? Um legally resident?
acdha
16 days ago
@rtreborb: if Christ is really your all, you might want to think deeply about Matthew 7:23. Randall Monroe isn’t the one who’s drifted away from his values.
gordol
16 days ago
@tazio The 1st Amendment applies to everyone in the country. To deny this is to allow yourself to lose your rights too.
jheiss
15 days ago
I know, don't feed the trolls and all. But not knowing anything about this case I went and read the Wikipedia page and there seems to be no evidence, or even really any suggestion, that she was doing anything other than advocating for peace. But as others have pointed out, even if she was doing something wrong she deserves due process like the rest of us.

What went wrong at Houston Landing? Maybe it never clearly defined its mission.

1 Share
Houston skyline via Pixabay

There was something about Houston Landing that never quite made sense.

It was a large digital startup in a city already served by the Houston Chronicle, whose corporate owner, Hearst, enjoys a reputation for strong journalism. It attracted a stunning amount of philanthropic funding — $20 million — before its launch two years ago, and somehow managed to burn through much of it. It was beset by tumult after its second CEO, veteran journalist Peter Bhatia, fired the Landing’s editor-in-chief, its top investigative reporter and, later, another top editor for reasons that have never been fully explained.

And on Tuesday, the Landing reached the end of the line, announcing that it would close because, despite “significant seed funding, it has been unable to build additional revenue streams to support ongoing operations.” The site will shut down in May, and 43 employees will lose their jobs.

Peter Bhatia

Bhatia agreed to come on our “What Works” podcast last June after he emailed me to complain about something I’d written. My co-host, Ellen Clegg, and I found him to be charming, as candid as he could be when talking about internal personnel matters, and dedicated to creating a first-rate news outlet.

When I asked him about competing with the Chronicle, he emphasized that he didn’t see that as the Landing’s mission.

“There is so much opportunity to do journalism here,” he said. “And the people who founded Houston Landing and who ultimately recruited me here wanted more journalism for this vast community. They wanted journalism that was hard-hitting and performed traditional watchdog and accountability roles, but also to create a new kind of journalism, if you will, that is accessible to traditionally undercovered communities, which make up such a huge percentage of the population here.”

As for the firings of editor-in-chief Mizanur Rahman, investigative reporter Alex Stuckey and editor John Tedesco, Bhatia said: “I came in here after things were established and in place, and I gave things a year to develop and go in the right direction. I have nothing but respect for the people that you mentioned. They are good human beings and fantastic journalists, but we were on a path that was not sustainable, and as the leader, I felt I had to make changes in order to get us in a position to be successful for the long term.”

In any case, the people Bhatia brought in, editor-in-chief Manny García and managing editor Angel Rodriguez, are well-regarded journalists. Unfortunately, they’re also now out of work.

Columbia Journalism Review editor Sewell Chan, who had an opportunity to watch Houston Landing up close during his own stint as editor of The Texas Tribune, has written a nuanced and perceptive take on what went wrong. “In hindsight, money was both a blessing and a curse for the Landing,” Chan writes, observing that the leadership team may have been tempted by that early bonanza to spend beyond its means.

“The Landing also suffered from a lack of focus,” Chan adds, explaining that it was never clear whether its mission was to cover the city or the broader region; whether it saw itself as a traditional news outlet holding the powerful to account or if, instead, it sought to empower the community by providing them with the tools to be their own storytellers, like Documenters or Outlier. Chan also delivers this verdict on Bhatia:

I’ve known Bhatia for close to thirty years. The son of an Indian father, he has been a pioneering Asian American newsroom leader and has the utmost integrity. However, Bhatia had not run a digital-only operation, hadn’t worked extensively in nonprofit fundraising, and didn’t know Houston well.

Bhatia, in his farewell message, writes:

We are immensely proud of the work we’ve done and the impact we’ve made. Houston Landing has shown what’s possible when a news team commits itself to truth and transparency. Our stories highlighted voices that too often go unheard, sparked conversations that matter and helped inspire positive change throughout the city we love.

It’s a shame. Houston may not have been a news desert before the Landing landed, but more coverage is always better, and the focus on underrepresented communities that Bhatia talked about with Ellen and me will not be easy to replace.

It’s important, too, to recognize that what happened at the Landing says little about the nonprofit news movement in general. Chan quotes Michael Ouimette, chief investment officer of the American Journalism Project (one of the Landing’s funders), as saying that the closing is “not part of a broader trend,” and that nonprofit local news outlets remain on a growth trajectory.

Indeed, many of the nonprofits that Ellen and I track have proved to be remarkably resilient, with a few about to embark on their third decade. Unfortunately, Houston Landing will not join that charmed circle, and will instead close just a little more than two years after it was launched amid a wave of optimism.

Read the whole story
chrisamico
26 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

Don't like a columnist's opinion? Los Angeles Times offers an AI-generated opposing viewpoint

1 Share

In a colorful commentary for the Los Angeles Times, Matt K. Lewis argued that callousness is a central feature of the second Trump administration, particularly its policies of deportation and bureaucratic cutbacks. “Once you normalize cruelty,” Lewis concluded in the piece, “the hammer eventually swings for everyone. Even the ones who thought they were swinging it.”

Lewis’ word wasn’t the last, however. As they have with opinion pieces the past several weeks, Times online readers had the option to click on a button labeled “Insights,” which judged the column politically as “center-left.” Then it offers an AI-generated synopsis — a CliffsNotes version of the column — and a similarly-produced opposing viewpoint.

One dissenting argument reads: “Restricting birthright citizenship and refugee admissions is framed as correcting alleged exploitation of immigration loopholes, with proponents arguing these steps protect American workers and resources.”

The feature symbolizes changes to opinion coverage ordered over the past six months by Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who’s said he wants the famously liberal opinion pages to reflect different points of view. Critics accuse him of trying to curry favor with President Donald Trump.

Publisher says he doesn’t want an “echo chamber”

Soon-Shiong, a medical innovator who bought the Times in 2018, blocked his newspaper from endorsing Democrat Kamala Harris for president last fall and said he wanted to overhaul its editorial board, which is responsible for researching and writing Times editorials.

“If you just have the one side, it’s just going to be an echo chamber,” Soon-Shiong told Fox News last fall. He said broadening the outlook is “going to be risky and it’s going to be difficult. I’m going to take a lot of heat, which I already am, but I come from the position that it’s really important that all voices be heard.”

Three of the six people who researched and wrote Times editorials, including editorials editor Mariel Garza, resigned in protest after the Harris non-endorsement. The other three have since left with the last holdout, Carla Hall, exiting after writing a last column that ran March 30 about homeless people she met while covering the issue. Soon-Shiong’s decision caused a similar unrest with subscribers as happened when Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos decided the newspaper would not back a presidential candidate.

The Times used to run unsigned editorials — reflecting a newspaper’s institutional opinion — six days a week. The paper lists only two editorial board members, Soon-Shiong and executive editor Terry Tang. They’re usually too busy to write editorials. Soon-Shiong has said he will appoint new board members, but it’s unclear when.

He also said he was seeking more conservative or moderate columnists to appear in the paper. Lewis, a self-described Reagan Republican who just began as a columnist, believes he’s part of that effort. Soon-Shiong has also brought up CNN commentator Scott Jennings, a Republican consultant who has already contributed columns for a few years.

Los Angeles Times spokeswoman Hillary Manning was asked recently about editorial policy, but reportedly lost her job in a round of layoffs before she could answer. There has been no reply to other attempts at seeking comment from Times management, including how readers are responding to “Insights.”

There were some initial questions about whether a “bias meter” as described by Soon-Shiong would apply to news articles as well as opinion pieces. But the publisher told Times reporter James Rainey in December it would only be included on commentary, as it has remained since “Insights” was introduced to readers on March 3.

A gimmick that insults the intelligence of readers?

In practice, the idea feels like a gimmick, Garza, the former editorials editor, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

“I think it could be offensive both to readers ... and the writers themselves who object to being categorized in simple and not necessarily helpful terms,” she said. “The idea of having a bias meter just in and of itself is kind of an insult to intelligence and I’ve always thought that the readers of the opinion page were really smart.”

The online feature created problems instantly when it was applied to columnist Gustavo Arellano’s piece about the little-noticed 100th anniversary of a Ku Klux Klan rally that drew more than 20,000 people to a park in Anaheim, California.

One of the AI-generated “Insights” said that “local historical accounts occasionally frame the 1920s Klan as a product of ‘white Protestant culture’ responding to societal changes rather than an explicitly hate-driven movement.” Another said that “critics argue that focusing on past Klan influence distracts from Anaheim’s identity as a diverse city.”

Some at the Times believe an ensuing backlash — Times defends Klan! — was inaccurate and overblown. Still, the perspectives were removed.

Often, “Insights” have the flat, bloodless tone of early AI. After contributor David Helvarg’s column about potential cuts to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the opposing viewpoint noted that Trump supporters “say it aligns with broader efforts to shrink government and eliminate programs deemed nonessential.”

A better way to improve opinion offerings is to hire more journalists and put them to work, said Paul Thornton, former letters editor for the Times’ opinion section.

Media columnist Margaret Sullivan argued in The Guardian that Soon-Shiong talks about promoting viewpoint diversity but really wants to push the newspaper toward Trump. “His bias meter should — quickly — go the way of hot type, the manual typewriter and the dodo,” Sullivan wrote.

Soon-Shiong, in his interview with Rainey, dismissed claims that he was scared of Trump or trying to appease him. People need to respect different opinions, he said. “It’s really important for us (to) heal the nation,” he said. “We’ve got to stop being so polarized.”

A writer amused by the label attached to him

One writer who doesn’t mind “Insights” is Lewis — with one caveat.

“I like it,” he said. “I didn’t know what to expect but I was pretty pleasantly surprised. It does provide additional context for the reader. It provides counterpoints, but I think they’re very fair counterpoints.”

Lewis, who once worked for Tucker Carlson’s “Daily Caller,” was amused to see “Insights” judge his most recent column as “center-left.” He figured it was because he was critical of Trump. Instead, Lewis said it points to the relative meaninglessness of such labels.

“I guess I’m a center-left columnist,” he said. “At least for a week.”

___

David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social

Read the whole story
chrisamico
26 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories