The follow-up appointment moved from last week to this. I wasn’t sure what to expect: I could have been better, the same, or worse. But the report said my intellectual functioning has remained stable for the past decade and the doctor said that it will continue to do so. Just as others already said—just as I learned for myself—any further improvement must be made on my own. Unquestionably, my performance improved over the years, due to a large amount of support and opportunities from friends and family, but all that work was mine.
When I stood to leave, I posed my last question: Would it be useful to seek therapy and medication for my inattention? She told me that I was so high-functioning, therapy would not be useful for me.
I left elated. I just had years of my internal experience validated and I also confirmed that I was not getting worse. I am just the same. I am not unravelling at the edges. I have may have a disability but it is concrete and defined and unlikely to change. It may seem strange that I’m happy with no improvement but status quo means stability. It’s grounding. It give me something to hold onto.
More, it means that my disability is real, that my personal experience with disability is real. My performance has been inconsistent, sometimes disappointingly poor and other times amazingly superb. I had improved, in a broad sense, over the years, but it was hard to determine why I was improving. Many times, I questioned whether I still had a disability. I do so well in some things but so terribly with others. I don’t know how to predict my performance. Is this disability real?
Yes, it’s real. It’s real.
We’re told that we don’t need external validation, but I think a better lesson would be not to expect it. We do need validation sometimes, especially when you have an invisible condition that manifests in very specific and subtle ways with much nuance. I don’t expect people to understand or notice, but I need at least one other person to tell me that they can see it’s real.
I see my psychiatrist next week about medication.
And that’s where we are.
safno replied to your post “Threesome, No”
Is he seriously trying to blame you for being honest and up-front?
To quote a friend:
THOSE GRAPES ARE PROBABLY SOUR ANYWAY
Today in Men Who Fetishize Youth And Primarily Value Women For Their Potential To Sex Them.
I loathe bok choy, that Chinese cabbage leaf.
Its putrid stink induces me to retch.
The sour taste will always cause me grief.
To say I hate this plant is not a stretch.
My family loves this noxious acrid weed.
They simply do not understand my pain.
To them it tastes delicious, it’s agreed,
But this distaste I truly cannot feign.
Why torture me, O pungent cabbage plant.
I’ve done no harm to you or any kin.
Your bitterness inspires me to rant,
For you have always brought to me chagrin.
No, never will I stop this spiteful trend.
Bok choy I hate until the very end.
OKCupid has guys, white and straight,
All in search of a pretty fun date.
But then soon they reveal
Their misogynist spiel.
So their egos I’m forced to deflate.
I’ve started to watch this show Almost Human and it’s kinda awesome, but it’s science fiction and already 15 minutes in there is unexplained new technology and I foresee so much yelling at the screen because I just can’t deal with wrongness. There’s DNA computing so DNA can be considered a programming language and then there’s programming DNA to build new structures so DNA can also be considered engineering material. But DNA is both. For proof, take a selfie, post it #nofilter on Instagram, tag it #selfmodulatingmolecularinformationrepresent, and welcome yourself to the club of All Lifeforms On Earth.
So saying “programmable DNA” is redundant in the same way that saying “period of time” is redundant, and maybe 35 years in the fictional future, this will be a thing. But it feels misleading because it implies that there is DNA that is not programmable. Yeah, no. But you can say “programmed DNA” because that’s what genes are. You can also say that in this future fiction “programmable DNA” is an industry term. At least then it’s not bad science communication. Then it’s just science fiction. As it was meant to be in the first place.