Socializing

I am confused. I have been told by my support worker that she thinks I am very good at socializing and am skilled in this area, but believe me I am not!. It is all a fake. I told her this, that I put on an act and am really clueless, but she told me that everyone puts on an act in different situations and behaves more naturally with the nearest and dearest. However, I really can't believe that most people (apart from those with AS) face the same stress that socializing induces. My support worker is really nice and understanding, and I know she told me this in order to compliment me, but it only adds to my confusion.

My question is, Aspergers is defined as a problem with social skills, so if you are told your social skills are good, what does this mean? I think all of us with AS struggle with social skills, BUT, some of us, like myself, simply fake our personality and come across as better at socializing than we really are. It is all superficial. I am really very egocentric, and I admit that I am quite arrogant at times and look down on people who don't think the same way as I do or who don't follow the rules. I am so pedantic it is almost painful. But I keep quiet and don't tell people what I really think, apart from my parents!. People with AS are often described as tactless, which I can be, but most of the time I cover up my AS and am very polite, doing the thing that people expect instead of speaking my mind. This is why I 'pass for normal', because I am socially motivated enough to conform, more or less. But deep down, past my social exterior, I am emotionally immature, extremely narcissistic, and cannot compromise - I have to get my way.

I am seriously confused - who  am I really?

Parents
  • I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I am uncomfortable that the yardstick used to measure 'social skills' is overwhelmingly biased against autistics at - apparently - a ratio of approximately 50:1.

    Arguably non-autistics are demonstrably 'socially skilled' in comparison to autistics (however this is to be determined) because the odds are phenomenally staked in their favour.

    If non-autistics were surrounded by people whose natural inclination was to strongly avoid face-to-face interaction, it would be this fractional minority who - unable to resist the biological impulses causing them to crave this form of interaction - would behave 'inappropriately' due to their 'natural impairment' and undoubtedly develop behavioural issues to a clinically significant extent.

    Their 'social skills' would be very poor indeed in such a situation, illustrating that the notion of 'social skill' is actually imposed according to behaviour within a given environment - so if we've going to judge the social skills of autistics perhaps this should perhaps be taken into consideration?

    I wonder too if NTs don't appear to be constantly seeking attention (from an autistic's perspective) because they are engaging in social transactions where attention is sought and received... not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself... yet something which autistics are naturally cut-out off, to their detriment, it appears.

    I really hope that this doesn't come across as contentious at all, I'm just very pedantic and find it difficult to come to terms with things such as 'coping skills', 'social skills' or - if it comes to that - 'fitting in' 'getting by' and 'being yourself'. :)

    I also actually have a problem with the 'higher-end/lower-end' spectrum notion too... simply because we don't feel the obligation to categorise non-autistics as to how 'functional' they are... well maybe in short-hand like 'slob', 'boffin', 'pleb'  or 'toff'... but at least then it doesn't have a scientific pre-text.

Reply
  • I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I am uncomfortable that the yardstick used to measure 'social skills' is overwhelmingly biased against autistics at - apparently - a ratio of approximately 50:1.

    Arguably non-autistics are demonstrably 'socially skilled' in comparison to autistics (however this is to be determined) because the odds are phenomenally staked in their favour.

    If non-autistics were surrounded by people whose natural inclination was to strongly avoid face-to-face interaction, it would be this fractional minority who - unable to resist the biological impulses causing them to crave this form of interaction - would behave 'inappropriately' due to their 'natural impairment' and undoubtedly develop behavioural issues to a clinically significant extent.

    Their 'social skills' would be very poor indeed in such a situation, illustrating that the notion of 'social skill' is actually imposed according to behaviour within a given environment - so if we've going to judge the social skills of autistics perhaps this should perhaps be taken into consideration?

    I wonder too if NTs don't appear to be constantly seeking attention (from an autistic's perspective) because they are engaging in social transactions where attention is sought and received... not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself... yet something which autistics are naturally cut-out off, to their detriment, it appears.

    I really hope that this doesn't come across as contentious at all, I'm just very pedantic and find it difficult to come to terms with things such as 'coping skills', 'social skills' or - if it comes to that - 'fitting in' 'getting by' and 'being yourself'. :)

    I also actually have a problem with the 'higher-end/lower-end' spectrum notion too... simply because we don't feel the obligation to categorise non-autistics as to how 'functional' they are... well maybe in short-hand like 'slob', 'boffin', 'pleb'  or 'toff'... but at least then it doesn't have a scientific pre-text.

Children
No Data