What does "Autistic" and "Neuro-Typical"

Post Reply New Topic

I never said there was widely accepted criteria for inappropriate social behavior. It's going to vary depending on the social group and cultural custom. For instance, it's considered appropriate for men to wear skirts when they are contra dancing. In broader American society, however, it is not as acceptable.

I believe you are missing my point. My point was that I believe it's harder for people with AS to understand how to apply the rules of appropriate conduct to various social situations. Much of this may have to do with the inability to understand non-verbal cues in conjunction with behavior that goes along with it. Now, as a result, you may decide to just say "screw it" and be yourself, and frankly, that's great.

I should ask you to define "rational sane people."

If they are "uncomfortable or threatened" by a non-threat, then it's on them for being irrational. Soothing the delusions of a delusional doesn't help the delusional. If a "NT" stares at me, then I look back at her and she complains about it, it's on her, she started it and their was no threat on my part. It's just narcissistic "sense of entitledment".



Rosa Parks stood up for herself and others (Black people) in an unjust society, she did good and I can do nothing but applaud her good efforts.



Yeah, but name some behaviour that is "inappropriate".



I think you've misunderstood me, I didn't mean that anti-social behaviour was "accepted" by means of "encouraged", I meant that anti-social behaviour is generally accepted as a form of innappropriate behaviour.



It's just "shorthand" to me as well, as I've stated before, I see no difference between "them and us".

Edit: Apologies to FiddlerPianist and Janissary for my "brainfart".

Last edited by Demon-Chorus on 30 Jun 2009, 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Demon-Chorus, please correct your quotes above to reflect the opinions of Janissy, not me. (Not that I have a problem with her opinions!)

I'm not sure how the WP software wound up attributing those quotes to fiddlerpianist, but it's actually me you are quoting. So no blame to fiddlerpianist for things I said.

Anyway, it is not delusional of NT people too perceive certain behaviour as threatening even if you don't mean things to be a threat. If you are giving off threatening body language, it isn't irrational of other people to respond to that threatening body language. It is self preservation. Better to be ocasionally wrong than to be dead.

If you would like me to name a specific behaviour, I'll risk offending a different poster and bring in an example from another thread far,far away. I don't think this violates TOS. I'll edit it out of it does. In this other thread, somebody recounted that he did not realize it was considered inappropriate to not immediately turn around and face the doors after entering a populated elevator. This is inappropriate (though accidental) because it is percieved as threatening. There is nothing irrational about percieving it as threatening even though the poster meant no harm. The reason it is perceived as threatening is because people in an elevator are presumed to be using the elevator as nothing more than a way to get to a different floor pretty quickly. Therefore their only concern is to watch the floor lights and doors to ensure that they get off on the right floor. A person who doesn't turn around is signaling that he doesn't care which floor the elevator stops at next. Which in turn signals that he isn't using the elevator as a way to get to another floor (since he apparently doesn't care what floor comes next), instead his main interest is the other people in the elevator. Who are now trapped in this little box with no way to get out except past him. There is nothing irrational about feeling threatened in that situation. Threat assessment is part of staying alive. This is one little example. I could go on and on and on but won't. That's why I gave a generality.

Thanks for clearing up the anti-social criminal bit. I did think you meant "accepted" as in "people think it's ok". But now I see you meant "accepted" as in "this is a behaviour whose accepted defintion makes it inappropriate". That makes perfect sense.

Generally speaking? Here are some:

Making too much eye contact
Making too little eye contact
Talking too much about one's interests
Making what are generally perceived as non-sequitors to everyone but yourself
Being too blunt
Being too critical
Taking someone literally about a detail yet failing to miss the point they are trying to make

Then why should I care what hypocrites want me to be?



Exactly the point, if it's all subjective and has no real value other than to soothe the "majorities" delusions, then why bother?



I think I get your point, but you're thinking of it from how the "NTs" see things, I'm looking at it from a completely different angle.



Well that is how I'm doing things, I'm sorry for being "argumentative" but things don't get done if we all sit in a "circle jerk" and agree with each other.



Your demand is valid.

Rational: Rationale based on logic and objectivity.

Sane: Lacking in delusions (self and psychotic)

Exactly the point, if it's all subjective and has no real value other than to soothe the "majorities" delusions, then why bother?[/quote]
Well, it all depends if you need something from that group of people or not. If, say, they are co-workers and you are trying to gain respect and influence people, it helps to follow social norms. Otherwise you won't be taken seriously. I mean, you are free to not bother, but don't expect to get very far with that group of people.


I think I get your point, but you're thinking of it from how the "NTs" see things, I'm looking at it from a completely different angle.[/quote]
What angle is that, exactly? If everyone sitting in a room knows the social norms except you, you are going to be at a disadvantage. Maybe if you go to a spectrum support group (WrongPlanet included), you'll be given a lot more leeway, but there are still basic conventions you must follow. For instance, it's generally not considered acceptable to verbally attack someone.


Well that is how I'm doing things, I'm sorry for being "argumentative" but things don't get done if we all sit in a "circle jerk" and agree with each other.[/quote]
No need to apologize; I like good debate. However, I'm not really sure what it is we are disagreeing on. I missed your point, I think. Are you saying that you just want to behave the way you want to behave, so screw everyone else? My point is that is valid, but don't expect to get very far.

It's been corrected, I apologize for my error.



It wasn't WP's software, it was my own, in other words I made a mistake, I am human afterall.



Actually it is, it's call "paranoid delusions". A preceived threat from something that isn't there.



Maybe if the person was acting in an angry manner than they could be precieved as threatening. But if your just talking to them normally and they "instinctual" get the creeps despite nothing bad going on, that's not threatening, that's just a person getting paranoid.



It's only self-preservation if the behaviour is actually conceivably threatening, besides "NTs" find the same behaviour from other "NTs" non-threatening despite the blantant similiarity.



There's nothing "threatening" about that, it's odd yeah, but not threatening.



If you precieve mere oddball behaviour as "threatening" then I have to disagree.

[quote=Janissary"]Therefore their only concern is to watch the floor lights and doors to ensure that they get off on the right floor. A person who doesn't turn around is signaling that he doesn't care which floor the elevator stops at next. Which in turn signals that he isn't using the elevator as a way to get to another floor (since he apparently doesn't care what floor comes next), instead his main interest is the other people in the elevator.[/quote]

Well you've proven to me one thing mainly about myself, I'm definetely autistic (as are you) since we both seem to over-think things. However Janissary, "NTs" don't think like this, they think rather simplistically, they are not analyzing things like you or I. I'm sure many of your "NT" friends have probably already told you "you think to much" or you "over-analyze" things, this is because you (and myself) do infact do this, it's one of the things their right about.



You're welcome, I'd rather make myself clear than vague.



Over-thinking, jeez, I really am on the right planet this time, maybe Dr. B was on to something. But anyway thanks for the list Fiddler. As for the list well, I won't bother repeating what I said many times about "NTs and social rules" because my point about that should be clear. However on to my points of contest.

Making too much eye contact

Too much eye contact (staring), is only abnormal when you're not speaking to another, it's especially abnormal if you're staring at someone you don't know. Looking at a person while your speaking to them or they're speaking to you is perfectly normal.

Making too little eye contact

I understand this one and I have nothing to add.

Talking too much about one's interests

I understand this one too, again with nothing to add.

Making what are generally perceived as non-sequitors to everyone but yourself

No one has ever accused me of "holey-logic" infact they say I think like a friggin machine, I'm the first one to call people on non-sequitors (logical fallacies).

Being too blunt

I know about this rule but I disagree with it, honesty is the best policy even if it hurts. I wouldn't want to be decieved and I thusly will not decieve others, even if it's a painful truth.

Being too critical

By "critical" do you mean "negative"? Can you go into detail with this one?

Taking someone literally about a detail yet failing to miss the point they are trying to make

Can you explain this one to me? I don't understand this one.

It's also an issue of quality of eye contact. Simply holding eye contact with someone while talking to them is different from staring at them when you talk with them. When you stare at someone, your eyes are generally open very wide and they do not move at all from side to side. Holding eye contact with someone is a bit different, i.e. it's less intense.


Not a logical non-sequitur (sorry, I misspelled it), this kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur


Deceiving is different than being blunt. Being blunt is interjecting your own personal opinion about a situation which is not constructive to the information being conveyed. For instance, if you were tutoring someone in math, and they just weren't getting it, being blunt about the situation would involve you saying something like, "I can't believe you're not getting this! This is not that hard. Maybe you should just drop out of this class altogether." A more cnstructive response would be, "You're having a lot of difficulty with this problem. I don't know how much I can help you, so maybe you should call a professional tutor for this. They'd be able to help you better than me."



Sometimes people relay stories or convey ideas to others, but the intent isn't to put it up for critique. In such cases, offering criticism isn't really welcome. For instance, if a mother is offering up a funny story which involves her child in a playpen, and you are morally opposed to playpens, offering criticism of her parenting style because the story involved playpens is generally not appropriate.


This is the whole "seeing only parts of the whole" idea that a lot of autistic people struggle with. I still struggle with this one, actually. For instance, my wife doesn't like bugs. She had uncovered one in the kitchen the other day and was upset by it. She asked me to dispose of it. Instead of focusing on the fact that she doesn't like creepy-crawly things in the house, I corrected her and said, "Oh, it's not a bug; it's a spider." Let me tell you... that was the wrong thing to say.

I'm NT. I came to WP to help understand my own autistic daughter- to see if anybody had childhood experiences similar to the ones she's having now and to read about what came next for them so I could help her adapt. (And in that WP posters have taught me huge amounts.) Then I got sucked in to fascinating debates. Because I overthink things and am fairly logical. This is not unique to AS. Lots of NT people do it too. Many people think simplistically. Many people overanalyze. Given that there are close to 6 billion people who DON'T have autism/Asperger's Syndrome, this makes sense.

As to the rest about threat assessment, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that it is far safer to overestimate threats than to underestimate them. Not to the point of paranoia. But to the point of caution. Another poster elsewheres (not this thread) wrote a long and wonderful post giving the evolutionary biology reasons why this is so. If I knew where it was, I'd quote it. Suffice it to say that there is a continuum of threat assessement that humans fall along, with paranoia being at one end and obliviousness at the other. People who give wide berth to someone who gives them a hinky feeling are falling in the middle, not at the paranoia end.

Some social rules are integral yeah, but some are silly, I don't ignore all of them, just the ones I think are silly and others don't even follow.



I think it's more along the lines of follow the integral social rules while ignoring the silly ones will get you taken seriously. So far people in real life take me seriously, heck even when I'm clearly not serious.



I'm sorry I may have muddied up the water a bit by being imprecise, I don't ignore all social rules, just the ones that are ridiculous and no one else follows.



I'm not sure how to explain it exactly, you guys are fixating on the "details" while missing the "big picture", which seems to be the complete opposite of what "NTs" do, I'm trying to look at both so to speak.

It seems to me that you guys are taking a hyper-logical scientific approach to "nuero-typicality", making things needlessly complex. "NTs" are not as complex as you think, as I said your "NT" friends and family have probably stated to you before that you "think to much" or "over-analyze" things as my family and friends have.



As do I, I thought I wouldn't enjoy myself but I (and you guys) have proven me wrong on many things I used to believe, I'm throughly enjoying this intellectual endevour.



I think we're disagreeing on the nature of "NTs" and "social rules" to some degree or the other, or perhaps it's a breakdown in communication.



My point is not a complete disregard for social rules, it's rather take the ones that make sense and are agreed upon and reject the ones that make no sense and are ignored by the "NTs". Also I think we disagree on the complexity of the correlation of NTs and social rules.



Nope, I'm saying "screw the hypocritical charlatans", not everyone. I play nice with those that play nice, if they play by the rules I'm nice, if they don't I can turn into a raging jerk, because I dislike rule breakers who only think the rules apply to others and not themselves.

Oddly enough, that's not how I look at people when I talk to them, my eyes are usually more relaxed and I have a slight to big smirk on my face.

But on the wide open eyes thing, it's only really creepy when combined with a joker smile. A blank wide open stare with an expressionless face or awed face says more along the lines of "what the heck are you looking at". A menacing stare is with focused eyes and a look of malice.



Never heard of that, seems like a joke that's meant to be completely absurd.



I know that.



Being "blunt" is usually seen as tactless honesty and that's how I use the word, that's why it's called being "blunt", it's a straight-foward no BS approach. It's abrasive yet honest. You're describing unconstructive criticism, not "blunt honesty".



That's unconstructive criticism, not "blunt honesty", bluntness can be used constructively, it depends on who's using it.



That's one constructive measure, but there are many more, you have more than one option you know.



I understand but I have mixed feelings about this, you have to understand it really depends on the situation on hand. There is a saying "everyone is a critic", but I don't see the need for "criticism" if the intent was just mere entertainment, unless they ask for your opinion and yes your "criticism" is part of your opinion.



Thanks for clearing that up, but it doesn't seem to apply to myself.



Then you are clearly a "horse of a different colour" among NTs.



If your internal mechanisms (logical process) is different than other NTs are you truly "like them"? And not many NT people are infact thinkers, thinkers are quite rare (irregardless of the nuero-spectrum they seem to be on).



Do you think a simplistic NT is going to arrive at the same conclusions you have? I don't think so, a complex ASP is more likely to arrive at the same conclusions.



If that's your opinion, so be it. But my personal opinion is different, I think overestimating a threat is ridiculous or overestimating (or underestimating for that matter) anything really. I think a middle ground needs to be taken.



Those in the middle access the "so-called threat" combining all the known data and come to a conclusion that isn't biased in favor of emotion or instinct, but rather a more objective truth.