How do people judge abilities/functioning level online

Post Reply New Topic

That's true. You're right.

People do form inaccurate perceptions of themselves, while not deliberately misrepresenting themselves, so I wouldn't say it is accurate to take them at their word online.

How do you hold that in your head? People misleading and manipulating, on purpose or without conscious intent, makes me agitated, how do you keep this awareness with equanimity?

People don't necessarily seek to manipulate others, but may have inaccurate perceptions of themselves, which they communicate to others and therefore give an inaccurate description of themselves. It terms of functioning, it is super easy to think one is lower or higher functioning in a certain area than one is. It's like when someone thinks that they suck at something that they don't suck at or they're good at something that they're not good at. Usually, there is no malicious. Often, there is intent, conscious or unconscious, to get others to think of oneself a certain way, but that is usually not malicious either.

What is someone doing, that makes you feel uncomfortable. In what respect is it consistent or inconsistent with the AS?

I test on the far end but don't consider myself disabled. I don't say any of this, in the real world, because I perceive most attention in a negative way.

Some people treat me well beneath my ability to cope -- patronizingly.

Other people act intimidated of me, as though I am rigid or superior.

A lot of people speculate me when they see my writing skills. They can't imagine I'm autistic or have as many issues as I do. The only reason my abilities are like that is because I have written for so long. I use writing as a way of expressing myself when verbal and emotional expression fail me. I've had people online who don't believe me when I tell them I'm disabled.

I agree malicious intent isn't that common, but do you not find it distressing to have to hold on to all these nuances? I was wondering how you do that? It's much easier on me just to believe people mean what they say, but I often get a rude awakening as people do some things to get their way or be seen as they want to that are misleading. It's easier to believe than have to think about that people lie without giving it much thought and for reasons other than the obvious protection of others' feelings.

But I am told an enormous amount of everyday interactions are to some degree manipulative, even if the goal is just to be thought of as smart, or kind, or thoughtful by people who seem to know what they are talking about. And trying to hold that knowledge and find something to do with it, how do you do that?

I don't find it a problem to recognize that people are not always what they themselves say they are.
I find it more of a problem to believe all they say and pretend that there is perfect 1:1 relationship between what they are and what they say they are.
As an eggsample of harmful consequences of believing all that people say about themselves or others, consider the case of the parent of an autistic child who believes that their autistic child can't learn anything advanced so there's no point teaching them to read or do math. This is not an uncommon perception. If I believed what the parent thought about the child, that would do a big disservice to the child, who may be able to learn many things, if they were given a chance to learn and good instruction adapted to them. As another eggsample, a person may self-report something else about themselves, and I would not believe them completely, that their self-report is completely accurate. In both cases, one should judge for oneself what the approximate truth is, which may not be what the person says.

I don't know, maybe you can't know unless you're very good in psychology to calculate the thoughts to come up with that answer since people write their thoughts mostly and not their behaviors

Truthfully, some people just like to play games on the internet.

They like to develop "personas" so they can have fun.

People play games IRL too.

I always think they'll be persuadable with good evidence but doesn't usually happen that way

This has been my experience as well.

Sometimes it happens offline too, as day to day I change. One bad night's sleep changes everything.

I guess I respond most positively to:

Clarity of writing and thought
Sincerity
Analysis that may include the personal but can also take a wider view beyond the self
Warmth
Paragraphs - I refuse to read "brick walls" of text

Thanks for the responses, everybody!

I don't think it really matters, but I'm curious about how people guess/assume or arrive at conclusions about it.

I find it extremely difficult to judge other people's singular abilities online (with the probably exception of writing, like Sweetleaf said), let alone their overall functioning level....Depending on the ability and how often/in how many contexts I witness a person using that ability (and my familiarity with it), I find it hard to do in person, too, but not to nearly the same degree.



The second example I understand in terms of over-extrapolating on specific skills, based on personal experience of those skills -- I've been on both sides of those types of misjudgements.

And after some thought, it seems like the first is a lot like the second, just applied to a broader category (and maybe less likely to be based on first-hand experience of a skill -- more likely to use conceptual association than personal association?). It's harder for me to mentally "hang onto" an image of how it works....a bit like a very static-y television set showing a single frame on pause, where you never see the picture clearly and only see it for very short periods of time before it's gone again.

On the subject of intent and misrepresentation....

I tend to believe what people say about themselves and to think that most people know themselves pretty well. That said, I do believe it's possible to over and underestimate one's own skills. (I've done both.) And I think it's really hard to compare skills with others, especially when the only thing you can compare is whatever you imagine from someone's words and your own extrapolation.

I think that people can over or understate things even when they do have fairly accurate perceptions, because of the meaning lost in translation when people communicate and/or because of issues with word-choice or not understanding other people's frames of reference. In trying to explain to others that I have difficulty with something, I might accidentally give them the impression that I have way more difficulty than I actually believe I do, or vice versa (i.e. give them the impression I have no difficulty, when all I wanted was for them to see that I'm capable even if something is hard for me or I'm just not as good at it as they are).....so in terms of the intent, it's kind of like accidentally using too much force to pull free a stuck-object and smacking yourself in the face or falling over backwards.

I sometimes get upset when people make assumptions (especially when they are assumptions about me that are wildly inaccurate....i don't think this has happened on WP, though).

But really I just started this post because I was curious about how people draw conclusions about these things.

I assume that if posters have bad grammar or lazy thinking styles that they are just normal, lazy people. I tend to feel more comfortable on the internet because people articulate better when they have a quality that causes them to pay more attention to detail. The internet seems to be the great equalizer, except for people that spend more time socializing than reading. Those you can easily pick out. Other than that, I don't think you can tell where someone is coming from and what their capabilities are unless they tell you.