What are the barriers to acceptance and understanding?

As a child I could never understand how the other children could be friends one day and enemies the next, be kind to someone to their face but slag them off to others behind their back, or lie so well and so frequently. I was really put off the idea of mixing with them because they all seemed so unpredictable and unpleasant. Over the years I realised that some were nicer than others, and it wasn't fair to assume all were bad, but rarely managed to find the motivation to try to bridge the gap. Efforts to do so often fell flat anyway.

As an adult I'm now OK at socialising on a superficial level, and will wait and see whether a person is friendly or not instead of just assuming they're not. But I neither want nor need to get really close to anyone except my family. I used to open up more in church, because I thought the people there were more accepting, but have had some bad experiences even there.

I know that it comes across as arrogant and superior. I wish it were possible to remain mostly isolated without it being perceived as an insult by others, because no insult is intended. I'm just tired of being hurt and of offending others because I didn't understand situations until too late. If a neurotypical person could really understand that fact, and accept it, AND not try to sort it out or push me to get out more, I think that would be a big step forward.

Trainspotter said:

Some time ago, I was pulled up by a manager for 'rocking on my chair' and 'staring'.  I know it looks as though I am staring, but I am just looking at nothing.

Trainspotter said:

It was then suggested that a 'behaviour agreement' was put into place, something I vigourously fought against and which I suggested should be an 'understanding and acceptance agreement'.

Very well done. I'd find that idea of a 'behaviour agreement' not just patronising and controlling, but outrageously intrusive and discriminatory. It's bad enough when a workplace demands things that may be under your control, eg EDS banning beards, but this sounds effectively like telling you to change your coping mechanisms or personality.

. said:

What, for you creates the “gulf of understanding”?

I think the Quora answers were interesting. I agree it's not particular behaviours that make typicals uncomfortable, it's more their expectations that make them uncomfortable. Having said that, I wish there had been more answers to the question from typicals. I'm writing as someone who isn't very obviously autistic and have been trying to find answers to Ellie's question as they can be quite subtle. Before my diagnosis I had thought of myself as a 'geek interpreter' having a moderate 'geek quotient' (I can't remember the exact questionnaire) and able to talk to geeks and non-geeks.

One NT answer at Quora focused on 'personal space', and I find this with autistic people myself and may back halfway across the room because my reserved space is larger than that of the person talking to me. I suppose attire (in my case a bit shabby) and personal hygiene may be factors too. But a lot of what may not meet typical expectations are things we don't do. Sometimes autistic people don't talk; sometimes we don't reveal our feelings or what's going on in our minds; sometimes we don't smile.  Sometime we enter a conversation without saying 'hello' or 'excuse me', which may seem rude, but I want to stress that it's probably better than not feeling able to enter the conversation at all.  If people do realise we're a bit different, they may not know the reason, or if they do have some notion of the label, they feel they should react differently and should know how, but don't.

I think a 'gulf of understanding', or rather misunderstanding, can come about partly because of differences in whether or not implicit values are attached to factual statements, or how that is done. A lot of my communication is objective and factual, but people may ascribe intentions to it that aren't mine. Meanwhile, when I do want to express a desire or opinion, maybe to talk about something by referring to it in a joke, it is ignored. Further it seems if I am arguing a particular way, people will miss the main points because I assume they can see the logic (some might say this was subtly lacking theory or intuition of mind, but that surely also applies in the other direction) and go off on tangent about a detail of some example or analogy I used. None of this is necessarily confined to ­ autistic–typical communication.

I worry we may worry too much about what other people think, and then inhibit our actions. Maybe that's because I'm not often called rude, but even if I were I know the danger of backing off and retreating is greater than embarrassment and a cause to slightly modify communication habits. I think an example like Tom's cycling down a path really could happen to anyone. It's not as though typical people have a better 'adar' (autistic radar) than autistic people, and it would seem to be the reverse. So could some of this be 'overthinking' or hypersensitive perception on our part?  I think honesty and directness is a good thing and it may be our best tactic for being understood and finding a common basis for understanding. We can't necessarily expect people to comprehend first time, but we can help them comprehend, through, among other things, autistic-led training.

DragonCat16 said:

We draw conclusions based on logic and they draw conclusions based on some kind of primitive animal instinct mixed in with several different types of cognitive bias that plague their entire way of thinking.

I don't think it's right to say typical people aren't capable of logical thought. In fact, to an extent everyone probably has cognitive bias and reasons back from a 'moral' conclusion  (see Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind). That implies a capacity for logic, if a disappointing misuse of it. Reason is only ever a slave of passion. The above comment can't help but remind me of the supposed average neurological and psychological differences between political left and right. Right-wing people tend to have a larger right amygdala, responsible for basing quick decisions on fear and disgust, including of social outgroups (even maybe 'infrahumanisation' that Graham introduced me to); while left wing people have larger parts of the cortex that evaluate new data. There are obviously right-wing autistic people, but there may be some correlation along that dimension, particularly given that the amygdala is important for social connection.  I'm sure many typical people can see they need to adapt as much as us.  Sorry that was a bit of a detour.

Second half of "Emma"'s Post... I agree with Miss "Ellie" -very good points. A different language, even when we are all saying the same thing, there. (What a pity...)

The biggest barrier to understanding an autistic person is being a neurotypical person.

Some time ago, I was pulled up by a manager for 'rocking on my chair' and 'staring'.  I know it looks as though I am staring, but I am just looking at nothing.  Just looking through someone in an attempt to mask my lack of eye contact. It tends to put me in some sort of trance when I neither really look at someone or hear what they are saying.  It was then suggested that a 'behaviour agreement' was put into place, something I vigourously fought against and which I suggested should be an 'understanding and acceptance agreement'.

A neurotypical, because they can actually control to a very great extent what they are doing and how they react to others, imagines this should be true of an autistic person.  They think that we can control the way we react to things and we are just 'trying it on'.  To appear how others want me to requires the acting skills worthy of an academy award, and then results in much anxiety.  If I misunderstand what a neurotypical says, usually this is thought of as me being awkward and deliberately obtuse.

Never having been a neurotypical person, I can only guess at what goes on in their strange minds.  But I do know that I am meant to be some sort of mindreader and be able to decypher strange communication, whereas as someonone autistic I am meant to accept certain training techniques to prevent me from speaking bluntly and saying what I mean.  All very confusing and it is no wonder we are misunderstood.

A good response Emma and very measured. Yes, effort to gauge and jump the divide is an issue and you’re right it is like we’re talking a second language unless we’re talking to each other.

almost two separate tribes

Lots of things, but mainly I think lack of knowledge. 

I find that NTs who are receiving different messages to the ones I am trying to project (due to the autistic alternative ways of communicating) are much more likely to put it down to rudeness or me not liking them (and treat me accordingly) than even consider the possibility of autism. An awful lot of NTs have very little knowledge of autism, or inaccurate ideas about what it is or how autistic people differ from NTs. 

Then there's a number of NTs (in my experience a small but significant number- most are really good about it when I disclose but that could be me being lucky in my acquaintances) who don't seem to desire knowledge- the ones who, even when told "it's an aspie/autism thing", continue to act on this false assumption of rudeness. I'm really not sure why that is.

I had a problem with a work colleague many years ago that boiled down to a lot of issues that (while I accept they must have been very irritating or appeared very rude/dismissive from a NT perspective) stemmed from my autism, but even when she had been made aware of the reason she didn't seem to want to know about the root cause or change her approach- even as I was trying my best to change mine.

Maybe because it was just easier to continue not liking me and therefore having an excuse to limit interaction with me as much as possible than learn a whole new way of communicating. :/ I guess it's a bit like "how many hearing people bother to learn sign language?"- very few that don't actually use it in everyday life because they have dealings with deaf or non-verbal people who rely on it. I certainly don't know any (beyond most of the alphabet, because it was a bit of a trend to learn that much at my primary school to use as a sort of secret code- it would have to be a conversation of spelling things out if I ever met a deaf person). 

Humans will generally avoid what is difficult to do and choose the path of least resistance, which is unfortunate when you're part of a minority whose path of least resistance depends on others taking a harder route. 

Of course the way society is structured physically doesn't help with the gulf of understanding either- a lot of us could muddle by using a bit of "NT as a second language" if it wasn't for simultaneously dealing with the sensory problems caused by everyday structures/occurrences!

DragonCat16 said:

There is no way a being who behaves according to the rules of logic can ever really make a connection with a creature who is completely incapable of logical reasoning. THAT is why we can't communicate with them. We draw conclusions based on logic and they draw conclusions based on some kind of primitive animal instinct mixed in with several different types of cognitive bias that plague their entire way of thinking.

Yes.....

so cross wires, misfires, both parties retire to their respective corners of existence

I think the biggest thing that causes misunderstandings is that NTs simply do not behave in a logical way and we (naively, according to them) expect things to be logical.

They expect us to follow rules that don't exist and certainly arent written down anywhere, while they are perfectly fine with others of their kind not following the rules that DO exist and ARE written down. Breaking an unwritten rule carries a much stiffer penalty than breaking an actual rule (the latter rarely carries any penalty at all, depending on the popularity level of the perpetrator, of course).

Why do they bother making rules, policies, and laws, anyway? Nobody follows them, after all, and usually nobody even knows what they are (except for us, of course). The rules were originally meant to make sure that things are done in a fair way, but if they aren't followed, or if they are selectively enforced, it would be better if they didn't exist. It would at least be much less confusing for us.

There is no way a being who behaves according to the rules of logic can ever really make a connection with a creature who is completely incapable of logical reasoning. THAT is why we can't communicate with them. We draw conclusions based on logic and they draw conclusions based on some kind of primitive animal instinct mixed in with several different types of cognitive bias that plague their entire way of thinking.

The shortcoming is theirs, not ours. However, because there are more of them, they like to think that they are superior and we are flawed, and they'll never acknowledge that the reverse is true. Why? Because they are not capable of  logical thought, so they are also incapable of drawing an intelligent conclusion, such as that maybe the fault doesn't lie entirely with us.

By way of an analogy. Is it the meal itself (ASD), or how it is served?