Published on 12, July, 2020
I perceive my brain and existence as a series of wiring trade-offs in terms of abilities. In an Aspie sense I am able to perform well in some contexts (for example, following theories, recognising patterns, lateral thinking etc) but poorly in others (such as small talk, perceiving the wants and needs of others when presented in certain ways that I can’t always read).
I am not overly clever but have been told that I can come across as aloof or arrogant and there are many articles on this particular trait in that we can come across as self interested and also narcissistic.
Maybe it is the way that I convey myself that creates the barrier?
“Aspies don't "make people uncomfortable" - remember, Aspies are people too, and they can also feel uncomfortable around people who are different to them. It isn't a one-way street from "weird" Aspies to uncomfortable "people": many people with Asperger's find the non-Aspie world weird and a source of discomfort. You could just as easily ask: What are the most common reasons why NTs (non-Aspies) unknowingly make people with Asperger's uncomfortable?Neurotypicals (NTs, i.e. non-Aspies) often feel uncomfortable around Aspies because Aspies and NTs have different styles of communication, and NTs expect Aspies to conform to their style of communication. They are not used to Aspie communication styles and do not know how to interpret it - or rather, they interpret it as though it was NT communication, and often draw very negative (and incorrect) conclusions from it.
NTs tend to use a lot of indirect, non-verbal, implied communication. They "hint" rather than state outright what they want. They expect you to know or to guess what you are supposed to do and say. And they have a lot of elaborate social and emotional ritual and they spend lots of time in social interaction just engaged in these rituals. Direct communication is often viewed as rude or arrogant.”
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-common-reasons-why-Aspies-unknowingly-make-people-uncomfortable
Now, I’d like to think that I am a multi faceted being...so there maybe many elements of my being that cause offence!
What, for you creates the “gulf of understanding”?
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.
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.