Why are "social skills" even called "skills"?

Post Reply New Topic

This kind of boggles me, and maybe it's just semantic quibbling on my part...but... why even use the label "social SKILLS" if such behaviours, instincts, and non-verbal fluency come naturally to neurotypicals???

I mean, when talking about other aptitudes like being a plumber or electrician or accountant, or hobbies like painting or composing music, that's a skill per se...

We don't talk in terms of "walking skills" vis-a-vis folks in a wheelchair, now do we?? No, because that would be absurd.

Having learned to mask over the years, having a few close friends offer me support and guidance since my early 20s and having gone on several dates with females with a few culminating in success...I can honestly say in MY case that it was a "skill" or else my life would have been filled with far more negative experiences. I did conscious practice of behaviours and it translated into acceptable response. So, if anything, "social skills" is really just an accurate label for ASD/HFA folks, but it's a misnomer for neurotypical folk.

Or, devil's advocate, maybe not... you have some NT folk who can be effective salesmen (or women, but far more common with men b/c showing TOO much emotional intelligence can be detrimental to closing a sale i.e. when dealing with rejection and agreeing/bending), they can be therapists or counsellors - but not all NTs would feel comfortable in that role.

So logically, when people say that lame reassuring statement of "we're all on the spectrum" then maybe it's true...because for some people the social arts are more of a skill, they can pick up on some non-verbal clues more accurately than other NTs...otherwise, it's not a skill but it's just foundational ability. In a similar vein to basic computer "skills" like moving a mouse or typing or switching between windows, or math "skills" like a cashier making change.

Kind of a philosophical thread, but makes you think, doesn't it?

Mechanisms of social behaviors and the idea of social skills.
It's a tricky thing to divide with a lot of overlap.


The mechanism part is usually executive functions, sensory and cognitive processing that affects learning and conditioning.
In turn affects practice, behaviors and amongst other factors whether inherent, acquired or consequential.

'Skills' is the outcome of practice, management and upbringing or training itself. It is outwards -- it is based on outcome.
It doesn't matter how or why, only that classic templates of social skills do not work for us because of lacking or having different mechanisms involved.

At least that's how I lay it out myself.


I get to observe how social skills IS as an actual skill opposed to the 'natural NT instinct' -- which is NOT a skill by any means, that many already developed by the time before they're in puberty or much earlier in life.


And of course it's not 'walking skills' and it is indeed absurd.
No, the right term is motor skills. Walking is just one of the outcomes of gross motor skills.
Physiological standing and to some extent walking by itself, has it's own mechanisms separate from motor skills itself.

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.

I don't know what else to call them.

"Skills" doesn't have to be taken literally. It just means something people can do.

Social...things aren't all 100% subconscious even for NTs.

Like moving your arms and legs being called motor skills

You got MMR vaccines when you were an infant. If they would have caused autism, you would have had autism right off the bat.

There are people who go through life reacting to there social environment reflexively (like autopilot). The might be called social reflexes. Some have better reflexes than others.

Often those with Aspergers go through life on manual control. Social interaction is less reflexive than intentional and the word "skill" is more appropriate.