The NT Has No Clothes

Post Reply New Topic

As for image vs. substance I refer you to my previous post.

Then I disagree with what you say about social vs. technical skills. It is Aspergers that think that social skills are not that important, in fact in many jobs (including technical jobs like engineering or IT jobs), social skills ARE more important than technical skills for bigger parts of the job. If you dont get what a customer or your colleague with whom you have to cooperate want, if you misjudge the situation and statements in a conflict, or if communication is getting way to clumsy plus even with a clumsy communication many things are going wrong due to not understanding priorities, concepts and processes, the employee might be more of a burden than of a help, and if you have the choice and can get someone with whom everything is smoother ... I think we should have more patience with explaining things and many processes cold be defined better. Sure, much more HF people could be employed and be of some use for companies (or even of great use in certain aspects). But there is a limit. A limit which is not reached, not by far. But still.

The biggest reason why this limit is not reached is a lack of awareness for neurodiversity: If you pretend too much being neurotypic, how on earth should we get how to best cooperate with you? It would have made a lot things easier for me and for others, if I had known 20 years earlier what I know now.

Sometimes it is also that you appear more depressed than you assume, or that your lurking psychiatric issues are more apparent to someone else than to yourself.

I think what companies balk at is also how to explain to someone on the spectrum why you treat them differently from others, why they have less carreer opportunities than others for example. An employer might not fear that it gets as bad as with Jerry Espenson, the Asperger lawyer in "BostonLegal", who got upset and took a cake knife to his boss after he failed to make partner. But your assessment of your limitations and the extent of your weak points, how they can hamper others that depend on your work, is often unrealistic. And so is the willingness and the capacity of giving a good feedback, partly also because not all of you accept criticism that well, some actually might get pretty emotional and scathing. So it is a problem on both sides.

@Adamantium: Their behaviour suggests to me that there is a piece of information that they have that you don't. This would explain why it makes sense to them. Because they haven't shared this information with you I suspect they think you would not be happy about it. For example, perhaps the administrator wants to agree with the psychiatrist because the psychiatrist is bringing something to the table like money or reputation or whatever.
Personally, I think you should take your kid out of the school. There is nothing worse than people without a clue trying to help you. They will do more damage than good. I've had a few doctors like this and have encountered it in work and education. To me it's not worth the battle when there are so many other opportunities available.

@Evam: Yes socialization is important for networking and communication. It's the meaningless stuff that bugs me. Like someone going on about their grandchild drawing a bee, or talking about something that happened years ago.

That could well be. I wish they would just be direct about it. All I know is that what they are saying makes no sense.

There are no other opportunities available. This is the school in my town. I can't afford a private alternative. I need to make this system work. The only way to get into a different school system is to move to another town.

Possibilities I've heard before include:
Insecurity, or perhaps confusion, "I've got all these credentials. Why are they questioning me? Why don't they trust me?"

Annoyance at having to explain something that, to them, seems so basic.

Annoyance that a parent would think they know enough to question the credentials the professional worked so hard to earn.

Or maybe it was something in the way you questioned their approach.

Anyway, you have a right to get some sort of explanation, and also not to agree with their solution. If something really doesn't seem right about their solution, isn't it better to be very skeptical and express your confusion than to let them do whatever they want with your kid?

I am probably the wrong person to give advice on this subject. A long time ago I realized that I couldn't trust "society," meaning the health care system, the education system, the legal system ... you get the idea. But, of course, I couldn't walk away from everything. At the time I was in school. So I just played along, without any expectations. I still do this today even though I have now been diagnosed and if cannabis is legalized I won't have to be a criminal anymore.

I can't encourage you to have faith in the educational system because I have none. I see public education as a dinosaur. It won't survive without serious change. If I was in the position of having to send my child to school I would encourage him to take advantage of any online or correspondence credits available. The least amount of time spent in the walls of the cage, the better.

No. They can see it (at least, the ones who've reached a certain level of maturity), they just choose to ignore some of it because they like it, it is what they are familiar and comfortable with, and they see exposing the b.s. parts as a threat.

But I think that maybe some of this stuff is more a matter of culture than universal NT stuff.

I wonder, is there universal NT stuff? Is there universal autistic stuff?

This is a really interesting question. I see how this can be a problem and I don't think there is an easy answer for it.

I think in the workplace, the bigger issue is that most people feel like they have to mask their real feelings to some extent in order to get along. There's a lot of pretending going on in most work environments, and breaking through the mask always carries a risk, where it could be seen as insubordination or difficulty getting along with others or what have you. I think that is true for everyone, not just neurodiverse people.

The difference though is neurotypical people tend to have more facility in masking, and/or in subtle aspects of communication that hint at what is behind the mask. When you refer to pretending to be neurotypical, that's probably the main thing that I feel like I have to do - masking how I really feel, restraining my natural directness and lack of inhibition, and finding more and more subtle ways to communicate without offending people.

I feel like the real crux of the question is there might be a fundamental difference in how I (or neurodiverse people in general?) view cooperation...in other words I've realized my idea of what cooperation looks like might be different from how most NTs see it. I feel like genuine cooperation comes mostly from being direct and honest, but sometimes I think it gets interpreted as a sign of hostility or aggression. And vice versa when other people use a lot of innuendo, they might think they are being cooperative but it comes across to me as manipulative or shady.

I think it's fine to have disagreements and it's a sign of a healthy (non-toxic) workplace when people are allowed to disagree and have diverse perspectives. But I often get the sense that other people see agreement and spouting the party line as a prerequisite to getting along and/or being able to move forward towards a goal. And I get the feeling that people will actually try to cheerlead me or manipulate me into agreement.

If I know something has to be done I will still work towards it and do my best even if I don't agree with it, but I am not going to be all "rah rah go team" about it...and that's just not my personality anyway even if I do agree and fully support an objective. But I feel like that might be seen as uncooperative, whereas I view cooperation as doing the work and getting the job done.

Outside of work this also translates into things like...I'm not super enthused about this gathering or activity, or the restaurant we chose or whatever, and it might be absolute torture for me, but I feel like I'm cooperating by going along anyway - and just wish it would be appreciated that I made the effort - whereas it probably gets viewed as me being difficult if I don't act happy about being there, or have to leave early.

I'm just guessing a lot of what it comes down to is when we think we're cooperating and doing our best to get along, other people just don't see it that way, because they want agreement, or want to see a certain emotional expression (basically want you to act happy about it even if you're not). The more this pressure is applied, the more we have to cover up our real feelings and suppress our real opinions. This causes stress for everyone...but again the difference for neurodiverse people is we just don't have as much facility in putting on a mask and then dealing with the stress that comes with it. It taxes our already tired and short-circuiting brains to the point of meltdown.

I think you very accurately describe the differences relating to the perception of and the expectations associated with cooperation. Neurotypical cooperation is quite different from autistic cooperation, and the notion that autistics are poor or incapable of cooperation is a stereotype perpetuated by autism "professionals".

In my own business I define the rules for cooperation based on clearly articulated goals, direct communication, and mutual respect for individually different ways of working. It works great. Surprisingly even many typical people enjoy it when they can work according to their own preferences as long as the results meet agreed expectations, which in domains such as software and engineering can often be specified in quite unambiguous terms.

That autistics are poor at collaboration is a myth.

That autistics suffer when forced to put on a mask to collaborate according to autism-unfriendly rules is a fact.

Many autism professionals assume that no autistic person could possibly understand autistic minds, motivations, and challenges better than they do.

Second hand knowledge from the outside is assumed to be superior to first hand understanding.

The essence of the flawed reasoning:

1. Autistic people have difficulties with theory of mind, which is defined as an impaired ability to understand the thoughts and motivations of others.
2. Therefore autistic people can't have any deeper understanding of any mind.
3. Understanding the perceptions that others have of oneself plays a very big role in understanding oneself, therefore autistic people are even impaired in understanding their own mind.

The resulting attitude to autists is pure discrimination.

What if I mainly care about how I am perceived by other autists, because I value their directness, and what if I don't care about the perceptions of those who dismiss the value of direct communication and honesty?

Autists rely on direct communication because indirect and non-verbal communication is highly unreliable. Direct communication and asking sometimes challenging questions reduces uncertainty and is helpful to autists. Indirect communication creates uncertainty and anxiety and is unhelpful to autists.

Teaching autistic children to submit to neurotypical modes of communication at all times as much as possible sets them up for a life as a second class citizen.

JBW, that black-and-white, flawed reasoning would lead to discrimination, I agree. That adds prejudice to the list.

I wonder if indirect communicators realize that they contribute to my anxiety, and what they would do if they knew. I realize that there's no one answer to that question though, because indirect communicators are a diverse group. Either way, it's easier for me to feel close to people who share my directness.

Wow I hadn't thought of it that way, but me too...definitely. And on the other hand it is very difficult for me to feel close to people who are not very open or direct with me.

I think most NTs probably don't understand that being indirect causes us anxiety - or frustration - because that is how they feel more comfortable communication. In fact I think it is the opposite for most people, being direct is what causes them more anxiety because it involves an element of risk. For instance asking for something directly instead of hinting about it leaves the person more open to rejection. Whereas for me it causes me much more anxiety to try to understand what they are hinting at, or to have to do my own hinting instead of just asking.

However people with sociopathic tendencies would understand the anxiety, and try to use it to their advantage, the whole point being to unsettle someone and keep them guessing.

I'm inclined to agree. There are for instance cultures (the #1 example I can think of is Swiss German) that greatly value directness. Finns don't like small talk. Culture matters a lot!

Note: This rant has been built up over time.
I can't function in society simply, because I realize no matter how hard I try society will never be made for me. I find this disturbing. Since, society is made for the average, not the individual only the average can succeed. Therefore, the Disabled on exist because of society's inability by there very nature to accommodate them. They trade Ideals for efficiency.
Autistics are the ultimate example of this. Since, most of us either.

*Lack the ability to communicate our desires effectively or at all.
*Have to much social anxiety to communicate effectively.
*Aren't taken seriously, because of us being Autistic.
*All of the above or a combination of the above.
Since we can't communicate our needs. This is our societies ultimate flaw.
When, You are either born into or become a member of a society. You trade your Freedom (Not the american lie) for protection. Yes, America's Freedom is just a lie. Laws are limiting your "freedom" therefore it's not freedom to begin with.
War wouldn't exist if every society was the same, so since they are different by the limits of our freedom, war exists. If society was more peaceful it would accommodate the needs of the individual, therefore. In this scenario the only limits would be the different government types.
*Democracy
*Republic
* Monarchy
*Aristocracy
*Dictatorship
This is why it is so hard for there to be a community of Autistics. Especially on as large as [url=wrongplanet.net]WP[/url] This is why it is highly unlikely for there to be a Autistic Nation (Majority of Autistic people).
Which brings me to my final point. That the majority will always be accomidated therefore it be better for society to divide, by the groups of neurotypes/disorders.. This would be the most ideal society possible. Which goes along with the last point.
In, Conclusion, the only way for Autistics to become accomadated would be for us to have a Majority Autistic Nation. Either by all Flocking to one nation or, by conquering our own land. Each one more unlikely than the other.
P.S. Since I used The BBCode those that have trouble seeing might Need to zoom. Why isn't the List feature worked

[quote="dianthus] However people with sociopathic tendencies would understand the anxiety, and try to use it to their advantage, the whole point being to unsettle someone and keep them guessing.[/quote]

How do you respond if you are aware that they are doing this? I'm just asking because it seems to happened to me a lot.

I'm still of the opinion a majority-autistic country would destroy itself.

Also, your conclusions don't logically follow from your premise.