At the intersection of autism and economics there have been some unfortunate choices of terminology. Happily, the people behind that have changed the name of their house organ from “Post-autistic Economic Review” to “Real-World Economic Review.” [A post in a now-defunct blog], tells us the following:
Most stick to their positions, even in the face of intense social pressure, and their values aren’t shaped by financial, social, or political influences.
“Aren’t” sounds like it might be an over-generalization; even something that could be inferred as a guarantee. A flattering stereotype is still a stereotype. I would nevertheless be willing to stick my neck out far enough to suggest that autistic persons, on average, are harder to buy off. This seems counterintuitive given some estimates of an autistic adult unemployment rate north of 90%. If autistic people are under more financial pressure than most people, perhaps it is reasonable to believe they are more likely to be able to be bought off. This may be the case, but somehow it doesn’t seem to be the case. Wondering out loud, could it be that a certain relative guilelessness that might be associated with autistic folk, might be a large contributor to the shocking employment statistics? It seems a reasonable guess that companies choose employees not just for what they’re able to do, but what they’re willing to do. Could it be that having values that “aren’t [generally] shaped by financial, social, or political influences” makes one somewhat unemployable? It raises questions, like what percentage of employed people were hired specifically for what they’re willing to do? What percentage were hired mainly for that tendency, or partially, etc.—and how could one go about empirically testing such a hypothesis?