Dialogue aspie-style?

Post Reply New Topic

We are famously weak on so-called social communication as it is construed by the psychologists. I certainly am.

But there is a certain kind of dialogue that I believe may be especially well-suited to aspie strengths, in which I'm wondering if we may outperform the NTs. I"m newly self-diagnosed, and have been very impressed by the insights of others. Looking for our trademark honest feedback here. This is an idiosyncratic notion I've developed over the years.

I think of "dialogue" as a very special thing, apart from ordinary social interaction. "Dialogue" should be a completely safe space, where it is OK to experiment and to say risky or blunt things without fear of rejection or excessive reaction.

"Dialogue" may address anything at all, but the way it addresses things focuses primarily on questions of meaning and what I like to call the true, the good, and the beautiful, rather than on achieving some practical result. What I mean by dialogue concentrates strongly on the actual words said, and then on the meanings of what is actually said, taken not as supposedly self-evident, but subject to detailed examination, based on context and nuance and relations to other meaning.

I've always had a principle, which now strikes me as very aspie: We should always as much as possible say whatever it is we really mean, and really mean whatever we say.

A second principle: Everything we say is an implicit invitation to dialogue. For practical reasons we need to have a degree of assertiveness, to avoid being paralyzed by indecision. This means we have to say things that are really a bit tentative, perhaps a bit more strongly than we feel. And when we say things to others, we should expect them to respond. We may not be good at social cues, but I feel that I at least am really good at catching deeper nuances and context of what is explicitly said, due to my detailed brain, even if I'm a bit slow on the uptake. I'm wondering, do others feel this way?

I feel that one of the ways I am most misunderstood by NTs is that I can sound (and be) very assertive, but for me there is always an unspoken assumption that every assertion is subject to dialogue, and indeed is an invitation to dialogue.

I also believe in the golden rule for interruptions. Tolerating interruptions ought to go along with focus on what is actually said. If you have a question or urgent response to what I just said, I want you to interrupt me (hopefully at the end of a sentence), and I earnestly hope you will show me the same understanding.

The way we are commonly misunderstood in this regard strikes me as a classic case of the double empathy problem -- it's not at all that we don't understand or value reciprocity (I do, very intensely), but rather that we approach it on a deep level rather than a superficial level. I may miss cues from facial expressions, but I approach people in a much larger way, emphasizing everything we say and do rather than immediate social situations.

I'm a tender-hearted idealist whose spirits are undampened by the world's cruelty. This may not work for everyone. But I think that dialogue on a double empathy model is just what the world needs more of.

Interesting points, thanks for taking the time to communicate this. It deserves a nice detailed response but I am overwhelmed with other issues and may never get back to this. So I just want to say, I enjoyed reading it and it definitely resonates with me. I agree with much of what you say.

In my experience with in-person dialogue in a few support groups discussions revolved around the exchange of information.

Thank you so much. It means a lot to me that this resonates with someone else.

OK, I take this as some sort of counter-evidence. Of course I don't mean to deny that we can have practical exchanges of information as well. We certainly do have practical needs like everyone else. And maybe my obsession with deeper meaning has to do with my own particular special interests rather than a broadly shared trait. But I have been intrigued by the hyperconnected brain metaphor, though I don't take it to be the final word.

I personally recommend mixed diagnosis groups for people looking for improving communication and general life skills.

You idea sounds interesting but I don't understand it. How do we do dialogue? Can you give me more information?

Well, I would begin by distinguishing it from what I call "alternating monologue". People can take turns talking, but never really connect.

What I want to call dialogue aims first and foremost at shared understanding, rather than simple exchange of information or any practical result, although it may include both of those.

Part of what I'd like to believe is that real connection comes more from attentive reflection on all the angles and implications of what the other person actually says, than it does from, say, keeping close track of their nonverbal signals. This presupposes that we actually care about the meaning of what we are saying. If I care about meaning, then among other things I want to be understood, and should welcome any sincere and non-hostile questioning of my reasoning. Conversely, I should be willing to take the risk of saying what I really think. So there is a sort of implicit contract to have a safe space. The fundamental assumption is that participants participate in good faith.

If I say something, I should be prepared to stand behind it -- which does not mean at all mean digging my heels in, but rather being responsibly answerable for it, in whatever way is appropriate.

Questioning of the words someone said should never in itself be viewed as a hostile act. There is a huge difference between simply questioning someone's words and attacking their character. Questioning should be seen as a fundamentally friendly activity.

Meaning isn't just "there". It always has to be interpreted. But it isn't just what anyone wants it to be either. Some things are more true, others less. The world pushes back in definite ways. Dialogue is exploring the shapes and textures of this together with someone else.

I hope this is helpful. I'm not sure if I've said any of it any better than before.

This is also something that happens to me in life -- I may feel as if I have expressed something with great clarity, but that is no guarantee that it actually gets across.

I'm also still trying to sort out what is a general characteristic of us, and what is really part of my particular special interests, a lot of which revolve around things concerned with meaning...

Thanks NotSpock. That does make some sense.

My problem is that I find most people these days love to monologue, not engage with the other person. This applies to both NTS and autists. Unless of course everyone I meet is autistic but I doubt it.

I've actually found the best conversations I have with people is where I don't relate to what the other person says. I just say 'yes, and-' then I continue on my own track. This generally results in the conversation going well and we both go away happy.

It does not make sense to me, it seems upside down but that seems to be how life is now: no one knows how to do dialogue, it's all parallel monologues. The art of conversation is nearly dead.

I hope how I've explained it makes sense.

Yes, I have always wanted -- and sometimes had -- friends with whom I could have dialogue as described above.

By no means are all autistic people into dialogue as you've described it. However, I suspect that people who enjoy deep dialogue are more likely than others to be autistic.