zlacker

That's exactly the dilemma.

Offering accommodations to people with disabilities is good. So you do that.

Then you recognize that not all disabilities that deserve accommodations are obvious so you establish some bureaucratic process that can certify people with these unobvious disabilities so they can receive the accommodations you meant for them to.

But the people you delegate to issue those certificates are... well, they're people. Some of them are not so discerning, some of them are not so bright, some of take pleasure in gaming the system or playing Robin Hood, some of them accept bribes and trade favors, some of them are averse to conflict.

Next thing you know, you've got a lot of people with certificates saying that they have unobvious disabilities that grant them accommodations. Like, way more than you would have expected and some whose certified disabilities are really unobvious.

Might the genuinely good system you put in place have been abused? How can you know? What can you do? And if it's not been gamed, then what the heck is going on that sooooo many people are disabled? That seems like it would reflect some kind of social crisis itself.

>>swatco+(OP)
Okay, the oposite would be, you put a stringent process on how to measure things. You have rigorous testing. These all take time and money, including lost income in time you need to take away, and money paid for the testing.

And you end up with people that could have had help to be successful, and not they're not being able to operate within the constraints.

So, what do you do then?

> then what the heck is going on that sooooo many people are disabled

Good question. We should study this and figure what the fuck we are messing up as a society... if only we had funding and also we had someone that could act with the findings and take action.

Looks like Stanford might be a good place to start. How's their funding situation?

>>swatco+(OP)
Article about this by Slate Star Codex: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/12/28/adderall-risks-much-mo...

>>rovr13+L1
> And you end up with people that could have had help to be successful, and not they're not being able to operate within the constraints.

> So, what do you do then?

You figure out what the equivalent of Blackstone's Ratio for this kind of accommodation is, and then proceed accordingly. If we declare that it's unacceptable for even a single legitimately disabled person to miss out on accommodations, then we should the nonsense and just give accommodations to everyone, explicitly.

>>swatco+(OP)
> Might the genuinely good system you put in place have been abused?

The system's resistance to abuse is one of its important characteristics. So if the system have been abused on that scale, the system probably wasn't good in the first place.

>>Ray20+wM2
In a healthy society systems that are less tolerant to abuse still function. And in an unhealthy society only the systems resilient to malicious actors work.