I work in the environment industry. There are a number of terms banded around that have certain meanings that may or may not be understood by the General public, this is referred to as "industry jargon".
For example, "best practice". In the industry this term is used to refer to the latest technology being employed by the most progressive businesses. It is a legal term as it is referenced in the legislation, and by very definition, the practical implementation of what the best practice actually is is ever changing. It also holds a secondary meaning to the general public as it is also a great marketing term but in that context has no real practical implementation.
"Environmentally friendly" has no real practical definition and is a good marketing term.
"Sustainable" and "progressive" are two such other marketing terms, although "sustainable" used to hold an industry definition which has gone by the wayside in lieu of best practice. Like everything else, even the environment industry has fads.
When a CEO claims any of these things about their company, I give it the merit warranted which is nothing more than a shrug with the response, "so what, prove it" as I know full well these terms cannot be proven or disproven.
Now when an environmental scientist claims that their company is iso14001 compliant, compliant with their licences and legislation, or that they are exceeding standards set for (as an example) air quality, my ears prick up and I think "nice, where's the proof please". These things are verifiable and made by someone qualified to do so, and to be able to make that claim is actually impressive despite the lack of marketing lustre in those words.
So what is the point of all this? Coming from this background where there are a mix of legal words and marketing words that are seemingly interchangeable to the general public, but have very real practical implications within the industry, I find it astounding that there is no real distinction with the "autism industry" (for lack of a better term).
The reliability of the DSM is disputed, but like it or not, it is the credited diagnostic criteria by which physiologists are bound to reference. You may like to claim your company is environmentally friendly, but if you claim it is best practice, expect to be asked to prove it. Similarly, if a psychologist says you are autistic, they should be able to point to the DSM and verify it. But for some reason legal terms regarding autism are being used and applied by the general public as if they hold no provable industry definition.
Now there is another aspect to this I need to address, and that is who has the right to request you to substantiate your claims if you use a legal word. First, it is the government and the courts. Secondly, your stakeholders have a right to request you prove it. The term "stakeholders" is broad and can include your investors, your neighbours whom your project is impacting, your clients, and, if you are going to preach/teach to the rest of the industry about how you do it, then even they become a stakeholder. These people have a vested interest in the validity of your claim. If you don't substantiate your claim when requested by these people, you may not end up in court, but you lose respect from them.
When a person claims they are aspie (a word that has a legal definition) but don't have an official diagnosis, I feel no need to pass judgement on them because it is of no consequence to me. They may be right, they may be wrong, I really don't care. But, when said person starts questioning the opinion of others, and "debating" using their own personal experience to substantiate their claim at the expense of a diagnosed aspie, I think it very reasonable to question their viewpoint.
Do I need to debate or argue with the CEO or you to prove I am right and you are wrong? No, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't be offended when I am not swayed by the argument you put forward. I feel obliged to take your opinion with a grain of salt just like I would the advice of any layman in an industry context.
For example, "best practice". In the industry this term is used to refer to the latest technology being employed by the most progressive businesses. It is a legal term as it is referenced in the legislation, and by very definition, the practical implementation of what the best practice actually is is ever changing. It also holds a secondary meaning to the general public as it is also a great marketing term but in that context has no real practical implementation.
"Environmentally friendly" has no real practical definition and is a good marketing term.
"Sustainable" and "progressive" are two such other marketing terms, although "sustainable" used to hold an industry definition which has gone by the wayside in lieu of best practice. Like everything else, even the environment industry has fads.
When a CEO claims any of these things about their company, I give it the merit warranted which is nothing more than a shrug with the response, "so what, prove it" as I know full well these terms cannot be proven or disproven.
Now when an environmental scientist claims that their company is iso14001 compliant, compliant with their licences and legislation, or that they are exceeding standards set for (as an example) air quality, my ears prick up and I think "nice, where's the proof please". These things are verifiable and made by someone qualified to do so, and to be able to make that claim is actually impressive despite the lack of marketing lustre in those words.
So what is the point of all this? Coming from this background where there are a mix of legal words and marketing words that are seemingly interchangeable to the general public, but have very real practical implications within the industry, I find it astounding that there is no real distinction with the "autism industry" (for lack of a better term).
The reliability of the DSM is disputed, but like it or not, it is the credited diagnostic criteria by which physiologists are bound to reference. You may like to claim your company is environmentally friendly, but if you claim it is best practice, expect to be asked to prove it. Similarly, if a psychologist says you are autistic, they should be able to point to the DSM and verify it. But for some reason legal terms regarding autism are being used and applied by the general public as if they hold no provable industry definition.
Now there is another aspect to this I need to address, and that is who has the right to request you to substantiate your claims if you use a legal word. First, it is the government and the courts. Secondly, your stakeholders have a right to request you prove it. The term "stakeholders" is broad and can include your investors, your neighbours whom your project is impacting, your clients, and, if you are going to preach/teach to the rest of the industry about how you do it, then even they become a stakeholder. These people have a vested interest in the validity of your claim. If you don't substantiate your claim when requested by these people, you may not end up in court, but you lose respect from them.
When a person claims they are aspie (a word that has a legal definition) but don't have an official diagnosis, I feel no need to pass judgement on them because it is of no consequence to me. They may be right, they may be wrong, I really don't care. But, when said person starts questioning the opinion of others, and "debating" using their own personal experience to substantiate their claim at the expense of a diagnosed aspie, I think it very reasonable to question their viewpoint.
Do I need to debate or argue with the CEO or you to prove I am right and you are wrong? No, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't be offended when I am not swayed by the argument you put forward. I feel obliged to take your opinion with a grain of salt just like I would the advice of any layman in an industry context.
