Page 2 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

timeisdead
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 895
Location: Nowhere

20 Nov 2009, 9:45 pm

LabPet wrote:
TheSpecialKid wrote:
I don't think it's only NTs... I do it too, I hate when other people don't say their things directly, and I'm very much into problem solving, however I don't go to straight to my parents and say: "Hey I think i have AS."

I'm actually in pain, by not being able to tell them. Therefore I gave them clues, and either they understood it, or else they found out though my cousin.


I think I'd be leery too! Because you just cannot know how they'll take that information that is directly conveyed. Communication is hard and there's just no right way. One of our triads of impairment: Communication. And Aspies can be honest to a fault. The dichotomy is that it's one of our best traits too! And why I admire other Autists/AS; our direct honest approach.
(...even if that means tellling her that she does in fact look fat in that skirt) 8O


I can definitely relate. They ask for "truth" but only want their egos stroked. Because so many people cry over insignificant comments, so many are afraid to be direct.



20 Nov 2009, 9:52 pm

LabPet wrote:
^ Agreed, timeisdead.

I can and do keep my emotion(s) independently exclusive of logic and reason - part of why being in the sciences and my own nature. One characteristic of Autism that is distinct from that which is considered 'normal' or Neurotypical (Lab Pet is writing this sans emotion, just 'what is known') is that Autistics tend to think analytically, that is as if discrete pieces, as opposed to the relatively holistic approach that typifies Neurotypical thought.

I do admire that (certain) NTs have that uncanny ability to be intuitive - that is an asset. But as you wrote - hard for an Autist to know what is the true meaning and therefore how to proceed. If the pathway is obscured, by emotion in this instance, then we can be left quite perplexed.

Hi Spoken_Girl (BTW: cool new avatar): Forgive if I write out of context, but I don't think timeisdead meant any offense. Instead, just noting that perpetual discrepency that echoes that of Autists: Other beings can be just plain hard to figure out and there's no real answer. weatherman90: Unsure.....'afraid' may not be accurate but I am conscientious and wouldn't want to inadvertently make a mistake since I'm not able to "guess" what another may be thinking/feeling since it follows no discernable pattern. There is an aspect of unpredictability that's not 'scary' but unsettling.

Compelling original post! So many Aspies struggle with not being able to "read' another but we can, and do, compensate in other ways.

If I'm interacting with another and they need to express something to me then I do appreciate their being candid and not hiding - that can become even manipulative in worst-case-scenario.

Oooo, this one's tricky: Given NT (yes, even a friend) will ask a question. Implicitly understand that honesty is correct. But they may not really want honest, instead 'what they want to hear.' That's not being direct! But we shouldn't be penalized for giving that honest and direct answer.


I know she didn't mean offense. I think it's stupid to group behavior into one catagory. I used to do NT bashing too myself until I was on I2 and Zomg and saw "NT" behavior there and I learned we can be just as bad as them. So I learned all this "NT" stuff is stupid and we are people and it's a human thing. I have seen aspies being just as bad as "NTs" and doing the same behavior.


So I say people now or regular people or normality meaning the majority and that means all groups of people. Heck even aspies don't always tell me what problem they have with me. They also don't like confrontations just like lot of people. One aspie blocked me and didn't tell me a week later he did and said I had upset him with a question I have asked. This was five years ago.
I blocked an aspie online a year ago because I didn't like how he was treating me. I didn't bother to tell him to stop because I knew he wouldn't care because I have seen him being rude to other people and putting them down and saying he is being honest and doesn't care if he hurts you or not. So I didn't bother to telling him and blocked him anyway. I want friends who respect me. See, I do it too so it's not an NT thing. It's a people thing, a human thing. You wouldn't tell a bully how they made you feel would you? It just gives them more power to hurt you more and why bother telling people if they won't care or give a darn?



PlatedDrake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,365
Location: Piedmont Region, NC, USA

20 Nov 2009, 9:55 pm

timeisdead wrote:
PlatedDrake wrote:
Its something of a defense mechanism, at least from some observations. If some topic is considered taboo, "double talk" was used to get around it (ie, medieval era people trying to follow Catholicism, but hoping to keep secret their skepticism). Directness throughout history was always treated with one thing: immediate punishment for speaking out. Heh, if you think about it, one can only wonder how many of those on the spectrum died in the past for stating fact over faith. So lying, subtlety, deception, etc are a 1500+ year old mechanism for humans to defend themselves against society . . . ironic.


My question is why would a person in authority use such indirectness to the people he or she is in charge of? What exactly has that person got to lose? If you're in charge, you have nothing to fear for doing so. In such a situation, one is equipped to handle almost any adverse reactions that may occur.


Back in the day, and still true now, if you are in a position of power (the group Alpha concept), the one thing that gives you power are the numbers behind you. You lose that, you're an outcast . . . the lone wolf, or worse, the heretic and blasphemer. Also, its in human nature to listen to one who takes authority (were some tests on this that had proven some most disturbing results), but a leader has no idea how intelligent his/her entourage is. Its the intelligent group members that are viewed as a threat and deception is used to keep that person/those people from usurping the opinions of the others (this can be seen in the series Survivor, showing this tendency to be instinctual under certain/most circumstances). Ironically, its because you're in a position of power that you do ALL YOU CAN TO KEEP IT, OUT OF FEAR OF LOSING IT.


_________________
I'm a man of too many thoughts and not enough words to express them.


20 Nov 2009, 9:58 pm

timeisdead wrote:
PlatedDrake wrote:
Its something of a defense mechanism, at least from some observations. If some topic is considered taboo, "double talk" was used to get around it (ie, medieval era people trying to follow Catholicism, but hoping to keep secret their skepticism). Directness throughout history was always treated with one thing: immediate punishment for speaking out. Heh, if you think about it, one can only wonder how many of those on the spectrum died in the past for stating fact over faith. So lying, subtlety, deception, etc are a 1500+ year old mechanism for humans to defend themselves against society . . . ironic.


My question is why would a person in authority use such indirectness to the people he or she is in charge of? What exactly has that person got to lose? If you're in charge, you have nothing to fear for doing so. In such a situation, one is equipped to handle almost any adverse reactions that may occur.



The bosses I have had were pretty direct. They always told us what we be doing wrong on the job and give us reminders. I don't think they have hid anything from us but my boss I had in Montana, got afraid to tell me things because I get too sensitive and think I was a bad worker. So she call my mother so she can talk to me about my behavior at work without getting me upset. But I've learned to accept the criticism now and not get so upset and hurt.



PlatedDrake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,365
Location: Piedmont Region, NC, USA

20 Nov 2009, 10:07 pm

Spokane_Girl wrote:
timeisdead wrote:
PlatedDrake wrote:
Its something of a defense mechanism, at least from some observations. If some topic is considered taboo, "double talk" was used to get around it (ie, medieval era people trying to follow Catholicism, but hoping to keep secret their skepticism). Directness throughout history was always treated with one thing: immediate punishment for speaking out. Heh, if you think about it, one can only wonder how many of those on the spectrum died in the past for stating fact over faith. So lying, subtlety, deception, etc are a 1500+ year old mechanism for humans to defend themselves against society . . . ironic.


My question is why would a person in authority use such indirectness to the people he or she is in charge of? What exactly has that person got to lose? If you're in charge, you have nothing to fear for doing so. In such a situation, one is equipped to handle almost any adverse reactions that may occur.



The bosses I have had were pretty direct. They always told us what we be doing wrong on the job and give us reminders. I don't think they have hid anything from us but my boss I had in Montana, got afraid to tell me things because I get too sensitive and think I was a bad worker. So she call my mother so she can talk to me about my behavior at work without getting me upset. But I've learned to accept the criticism now and not get so upset and hurt.


Hmm, if a boss is direct, it means one of two things: that person thinks you're intelligent and values your contribution, or is direct to you because he thinks you are not as intelligent as he is and is talking down to you (may or may not pick up on that). Also, with respect to the latter, he may view you as a more intelligent "threat" and talks directly to mock you and hope the more negative emotions will keep you from standing up to him. I'll admit, the latter aspect has happened to me more than the former (both cases of the latter). In the end, many people are jackasses and theyre the ones who think they deserve a position higher on the corporate food chain.


_________________
I'm a man of too many thoughts and not enough words to express them.


20 Nov 2009, 11:35 pm

PlatedDrake wrote:
Spokane_Girl wrote:
timeisdead wrote:
PlatedDrake wrote:
Its something of a defense mechanism, at least from some observations. If some topic is considered taboo, "double talk" was used to get around it (ie, medieval era people trying to follow Catholicism, but hoping to keep secret their skepticism). Directness throughout history was always treated with one thing: immediate punishment for speaking out. Heh, if you think about it, one can only wonder how many of those on the spectrum died in the past for stating fact over faith. So lying, subtlety, deception, etc are a 1500+ year old mechanism for humans to defend themselves against society . . . ironic.


My question is why would a person in authority use such indirectness to the people he or she is in charge of? What exactly has that person got to lose? If you're in charge, you have nothing to fear for doing so. In such a situation, one is equipped to handle almost any adverse reactions that may occur.



The bosses I have had were pretty direct. They always told us what we be doing wrong on the job and give us reminders. I don't think they have hid anything from us but my boss I had in Montana, got afraid to tell me things because I get too sensitive and think I was a bad worker. So she call my mother so she can talk to me about my behavior at work without getting me upset. But I've learned to accept the criticism now and not get so upset and hurt.


Hmm, if a boss is direct, it means one of two things: that person thinks you're intelligent and values your contribution, or is direct to you because he thinks you are not as intelligent as he is and is talking down to you (may or may not pick up on that). Also, with respect to the latter, he may view you as a more intelligent "threat" and talks directly to mock you and hope the more negative emotions will keep you from standing up to him. I'll admit, the latter aspect has happened to me more than the former (both cases of the latter). In the end, many people are jackasses and theyre the ones who think they deserve a position higher on the corporate food chain.


They were all women and I don't think that was the case to downgrade me. They were just being honest and want me to do my job right. My supervisor is a man though.

Is that why people don't like being corrected? For that reason too because they think we are mocking them and stuff?

It took me till my twenties to figure out why people don't like to be corrected. They feel stupid is why because that's how I feel when I make a mistake so I figured maybe that's how other people feel too when they make a mistake and then they get mad when you correct them. They feel stupid is why. No one wants to be stupid but we all have to admit it and we feel better after that. I admit my stupidity and it makes me feel good.



Polgara
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 333

21 Nov 2009, 12:42 am

I have to think it's related to why we always wrap a gift before presenting it. The gift is concealed but is known to be there. The wrapping shows a desire to please and the receiver, while unwrapping, can formulate a response if necessary. Even if not wrapped it will often be concealed behind the back before being revealed, or given in a nice bag. A gift given "naked" may be seen as uncouth or even rude. I think the hints and circumlocution so much appreciated by NTs sort of "wrap" the intended meaning in a pleasing presentation. Just a thought.



LabPet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,389
Location: Canada

21 Nov 2009, 12:51 am

Perfect metaphor, Polgara!

Peculiar that, as I understand, wedding proposal diamond rings are placed in a fancy velvet gift box with a pretty bow....but maybe it's Zircon. Aspies give pure diamonds in the raw, and love - not just the wedding proposal.


_________________
The ones who say “You can’t” and “You won’t” are probably the ones scared that you will. - Unknown


granatelli
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2009
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 308

21 Nov 2009, 1:50 am

NT's (and I'm one) are often not 100% direct/blunt/honest because we don't want to offend the person we are talking to. We don't want to talk to them as though they were a child.

They say that something like 1 in 150 people is autistic. That means if someone spoke to a group with the blunt directness that aspies prefer 149 people would feel "talked down" to and one person (the aspie) would be greatful that the speaker spelled everything out in great, clinical detail.

We are not often as direct because we are trying to be diplomatic. By sort of "massaging" the point you want to get across it makes it easier for the other person to accept your point of view because they don't feel that they have to be on the defensive. I guess what I mean is by saying something nicely, or with a little empathy for the way the other person may feel about it, you can get your point across, accomplish what you want to accomplish and not made an enemy out of the person. That makes the listener more receptive to hearing what you have to say & there is less chance for hard feelings.

In the end it's a win/win situation.



LabPet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,389
Location: Canada

21 Nov 2009, 2:28 am

granatelli wrote:
NT's (and I'm one) are often not 100% direct/blunt/honest because we don't want to offend the person we are talking to. We don't want to talk to them as though they were a child.

They say that something like 1 in 150 people is autistic. That means if someone spoke to a group with the blunt directness that aspies prefer 149 people would feel "talked down" to and one person (the aspie) would be greatful that the speaker spelled everything out in great, clinical detail.

We are not often as direct because we are trying to be diplomatic. By sort of "massaging" the point you want to get across it makes it easier for the other person to accept your point of view because they don't feel that they have to be on the defensive. I guess what I mean is by saying something nicely, or with a little empathy for the way the other person may feel about it, you can get your point across, accomplish what you want to accomplish and not made an enemy out of the person. That makes the listener more receptive to hearing what you have to say & there is less chance for hard feelings.

In the end it's a win/win situation.


Thank you for revealing - really. And in a direct manner :D
Seriously, I know Autists/AS individuals are so often misinterpreted and this is a key reason as to why. Although we may not mean, at all, to offend, that 'Aspie' bluntness is interpreted differently by one with another way of thinking.

I really hope I don't offend...and would never purposely 'talk down' to another (ok, unless they needed it..... 8) ) but you stated that very well - thank you.
Often I actually understate (maybe most often) but the urgency of the message is lost since maybe I don't seem (?) upset/hurt? Unsure. I do get along well with most all - and I like most.

For one example, if all right to say: Approximately 1 year ago I severely burnt my Right arm in a laboratory accident (0 pH HNO3 at 16 Molar - Nitric acid) and had 3rd & 2nd degree burns splattered on my R forearm. I was taken quickly to clinic, bandaged, etc. I'm all right. But at that time, not long after accident, I wrote/said to one of my favorite professors that I hurt my arm in lab (I was teaching lab session at the time). He didn't say much at all (something like "oh, that's too bad") - I dismissed this and my R arm was covered with long sleeves so he didn't see the bandages from elbow to wrist with the 2nd skin underneath. I'm permanently scarred.
Then, later that day, another from my own laboratory (grad student, like myself) DID tell him I was REALLY hurt - the whole gory event.
I had just assumed he knew "I'm hurt" meant "I'm hurt." No...until that other student said he didn't get it. Then, he said, "You didn't tell me you hurt yourself like that!!"

Did I do this wrong? Maybe I should have been more dramatic? Sigh.
granatelli, would you have known?


_________________
The ones who say “You can’t” and “You won’t” are probably the ones scared that you will. - Unknown


Woodpecker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,625
Location: Europe

21 Nov 2009, 2:30 am

Well I find NTs can be quite confusing, they do seem to be hard to read. I sinerely wish that I could cook up something about the size of a torch which I could used to measure from a few feet away a series of parameters regarding their current mood. This dream tool would be like a geiger counter but it would measure dishonesty (white lies and black lies measured at once), how friendly they are, their general happyness, how awake they are, how stressed are they and a series of other parameters.

They sometimes say things which suggest to me that they have a problem which needs to be solved, when they just want to moan. Also sometimes when they have a problem which needs to be solved they do not say clearly that they have a problem which needs a solution. My world view works in the following way, if a problem pops up we need to consider and then maybe apply a solution to the problem.

Identify the problem, work out how to solve it, apply solution, everyone becomes more happy.


_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity :alien: I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !

Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

21 Nov 2009, 9:55 am

PlatedDrake wrote:
Its something of a defense mechanism, at least from some observations. If some topic is considered taboo, "double talk" was used to get around it (ie, medieval era people trying to follow Catholicism, but hoping to keep secret their skepticism). Directness throughout history was always treated with one thing: immediate punishment for speaking out. Heh, if you think about it, one can only wonder how many of those on the spectrum died in the past for stating fact over faith. So lying, subtlety, deception, etc are a 1500+ year old mechanism for humans to defend themselves against society . . . ironic.


Darwin was right. Any trait that keeps you alive long enough to reproduce is more likely to get passed on. Honsety to the wrong person can get you killed. It has been true throughout history. It's still true today. In some countries, you will be killed by the government. I shudder to think what happens to a North Korean Aspie who is unable to be dishonest about Kim Jong Il. I would say that this mechanism is older than a mere 1500 years because long before people were being put to death for criticizing Catholicism (or just being unable to lie convincingly about it), there were kings, warlords, tribal leaders etc. that needed to be lied to (or their subordinates needed to be lied to) in order to avoid death.

So I totally agree. If lying, subtlety, deception etc. can keep people alive longer, it will tend to get passed on as it has been.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

21 Nov 2009, 10:09 am

Hypocrisy is the base of all social relationships. Remove that and nobody would mate yet along reproduce. In order to make humanity survive, we need to be hypocrites and not ever say that your SO's mother could lose a couple of pounds.


_________________
.


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

21 Nov 2009, 11:00 am

LabPet wrote:
[
For one example, if all right to say: Approximately 1 year ago I severely burnt my Right arm in a laboratory accident (0 pH HNO3 at 16 Molar - Nitric acid) and had 3rd & 2nd degree burns splattered on my R forearm. I was taken quickly to clinic, bandaged, etc. I'm all right. But at that time, not long after accident, I wrote/said to one of my favorite professors that I hurt my arm in lab (I was teaching lab session at the time). He didn't say much at all (something like "oh, that's too bad") - I dismissed this and my R arm was covered with long sleeves so he didn't see the bandages from elbow to wrist with the 2nd skin underneath. I'm permanently scarred.
Then, later that day, another from my own laboratory (grad student, like myself) DID tell him I was REALLY hurt - the whole gory event.
I had just assumed he knew "I'm hurt" meant "I'm hurt." No...until that other student said he didn't get it. Then, he said, "You didn't tell me you hurt yourself like that!!"

Did I do this wrong? Maybe I should have been more dramatic? Sigh.
granatelli, would you have known?


I wouldn't say you did it wrong, since nothing happened. I'll just explain the usual protocol. Usually if you say you have been hurt but give no further details, people will assume the injury was very minor. Providing details allows the other person to provide accomodations or alter their behaviour in some way until you have healed. What accomodations or behaviour alterations might have been needed for a serious arm burn? People would need to not touch your arm until it healed. They would need to be extra careful not to brush against it accidentally. They would need to not grab, hold, pat or in any way touch your arm until it healed. You didn't get re-injured so clearly nobody did any of those things. Since they know you, they likely know you don't want your arm grabbed or held patted whether it is injured or not. A more touchy-feely NT person would be re-injured when others grabbed her arm as they had always done if she didn't describe the injury.

So that is why the explicit-details-of-serious-injury protocol is in place. It prevents other people from accidentally re-injuring you and causes them to accomodate you. A possible accomodation besides not touching your arm would also be that others would lift all heavy things for you until your arm was healed in case there was muscle damage. If you don't tell other people the details of the serious injury, that implies it is minor enough that it doesn't need accomodations or for anybody to do things temporarily differently around you.



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

21 Nov 2009, 1:00 pm

Direated at NTs topic

NTs do not like to lose face, so being direct just puts them on edge. I am surprised they do not have meltdowns because of this.

I spoke to a long known NT last night and she went on and on about God and Jesus and I knew if I told her she was wasting her time trying to convince me, she would have a fit. So I nodded and said nothing, knowing that eventually she would stop talking. I thanked her for her time, said I had to go, and she kept her face and I left before I had a meltdown. :lol:


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Irisrises
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 290

21 Nov 2009, 10:18 pm

Irisrises is on board.

I only have two experiences of this problem, with my childhood family as an adult and with Lotloi (=LOngTerm LOve Interest) because with other people I am frankly not trying to tell them much usually, just trying to go along or get away. But with family it has caused a lot of problems because before I self-diagnosed I didn't understand that they didn't understand the same things I did, it was incomprehensible to me that things that were obvious to me were not also obvious to them, and likewise, that things that were difficult for me were not also difficult for them. I've learnt that my thinking is different but I haven't yet learnt how to say things in a way that gets taken seriously, although that's also to do with family dynamics unrelated to autism. But I don't speak to them much right now.

Lotloi is a bit different because he doesn't actually have much of a problem with directness, he just doesn't really pay much attention unless I really throw a fit which I don't like to do. He's a bit like a sieve, everything passes through him, including my carefully worded protests, invitations and goodwill gestures, which I always assume he will not only retain but treasure...no such luck. What to do. It's true what Sartresue said about losing face, he thinks he's losing face if he listens to me just like I guess he thinks it's an act of submission that I listen to him and comply with what he wants - but how else can people move forward together? I don't fight, I don't need to be fought. I admire him in so many ways and I don't want that to be a source of humiliation for me. That's not right.

But I don't make myself clear even when I think I have. And I'm not coy or flirtatious enough, women do that to inform men of their intentions. I think everything should be straight-forward - we'll meet at this time at this place, it's easy, you tell me, I tell you - but I guess he thinks that's boring, he likes to banter, and that's a lot of work for me.

It's love, no? I'll do this, not for you, but with you. But you've got to do it with me, too.

But I'm in this foreign city at the moment, for another week, and it's built around a sacred mountain which I didn't know before I got here but those mountains are everywhere so I'm not surprised. (What makes them sacred is that people used them for spiritual focus for millennia before the modern era although few of them are currently in use.) So this mountain, when I got here it invited me to share its alignment while I'm here. There have been two explicit instructions, both saying the same thing: one was when I went to a yoga class and the teacher said to me "notice that wobbliness in your knees? Hang out in that wobbly place" and the other one was a dance performance by a dancer/choreographer who'd lost a leg in an accident and he was dancing and talking and the show was about "don't try to find and show off your equilibrium, explore the possibilities in your lack of equilibrium". Always falling, always going on.

That may not sound very clear to everybody, me talking to mountains and so on, but it's the world I live in. :lol: