Published on 12, July, 2020
I wanted to sound out some thoughts on why I think I have trouble with social situations. Is it just my experience or do others recognise this?
I think I understand social groupings as adapting to the composition of the group. When several or more people meet, they somehow gauge the characteristics of each other and co-align their behaviour - humour, mannerisms, gestures, manners etc. People usually very quickly pick up on the dynamics of the social group they are in, and that's what enables social conversation to run smoothly.
My notion is that owing to AS I don't pick up on these clues as quickly, if at all. So I don't settle in to the social dynamics of those around me. I've been trying to work out what exactly it is I'm not doing right. All sorts of factors could be involved, about how I process information being one possible cause.
One current notion I have is that it is rigidity of thinking that lets me down. I cannot quickly try the opposite or different option. What I wonder is whether people who are not on the spectrum, when they find the rest of the group doesn't react well to something they've said or done, they quickly go for a different approach. There is an ability to try variations around a particular problem until they get the one that matches. Repeated over a number of different interactions, they quickly adapt to the ways of others in the group.
I'm conscious that if I don't seem to be getting anywhere in a social situation, I don't do well at finding a different approach. I just keep trying the one approach.
This is where door handles come into it. There is a "test" for AS I've come across which is what do you do if a door handle goes up rather than down to open a door? In my experience I keep trying to turn it the one way I think is logical. I don't seem to try to turn it the other way. I often find this with the computer, if the system has changed something, I just don't pick up on the alternatives. I just keep trying one way and get nowhere.
I wionder therefore if part of the socialisation problem I and others face is not being quickly able to change my approach when the one that makes sense to me isn't working. Is rigidity of thought stopping me from adapting to the way other people interact?
Answers on a postcard...... or preferably on this thread. NAS have you any theories on this?
longman said:I agree you can argue people on the spectrum want real dialogue about interesting things, but to survive in human society we actually do need the social interface, for which we are not equipped.
I agree you can argue people on the spectrum want real dialogue about interesting things, but to survive in human society we actually do need the social interface, for which we are not equipped.
Agreed. What is particularly frustrating is the misunderstanding. For example the assumtion an NT might make in thinking they understand you and you understand them. I don't think enough consideration is given what a major obstical in life this can be.
In certain situations (maybe a regular appointment) someone may think you are very capable in all social situations and find it hard to understand your social difficulties.
If I compare it to balancing an apple on your head:
I find myself in social situations really struggling to keep it going. I can be using all may energy trying to look the part of someone having a converstaion. I seem to be using all my energies on communicating and not much on processing. It is easier if there is something to talk about such as a mutual task. Some people are easier to talk to as I feel I can be a bit random (a strategy I seem to do is just scrape around for 'anything' to say).
To go all anthropological on this (and I've been studying NTs for a long time to find out what I'm doing wrong!), most people rely on social conversation to gauge each other's prejudices, loyalties, allegiances, sincerity, approachability, LOVABILITY (and dare I mention sexual interest).
The problem with the spoken word is that it lacks precise emotional definition. It can be misunderstood. With text in chat rooms people use emoticons to convey the additional emotion needed to "angle" the written meaning. In actual spoken conversation people smile, smirk, grump or moan to achieve the right emoticon, but it is not sufficient.
Humans are social animals, and need each other to achieve things - working together, team work. To do that they need to know who they can trust, who they can rely on, who will let them down or double cross them. Facial expression isn't sufficient as people can deploy a different facial expression to deceive as in "poker face" - poker being a game where hiding your true situation by bluffing and not showing apprehension or confidence you have the right cards is crucial. And why do we need lie detectors? Facial expression is not enough.
So the solution humans have come up with is social chat. It is not the subject matter that really matters. It is a subtle game where one person uses a line of dialogue to gauge another's reactions. To see if he or she will always agree, or always disagree, or have a completely different line of thinking from the one sought.
Now I agree with Jon that you can opt out. But then isolation is not helpful to people on the spectrum, and if you haven't got supporting family or a good care worker you really are on your own (you only have to consider the number of people on the spectrum who are vagrant on the streets or in hostels).
I also agree with autismtwo that you can go along with it and make the best of it. But it does mean people will be reluctant to chat with you if you don't respond right, and you may mislead people about your intentions if you consistently but unintentionally give wrong messages.
I have trouble with facial expression. I'm prone to a detached sad or scowling or blank face. I think I'm smiling but the translation from thought to muscle movements doesn't appear to be reliable. So people keep reading me as antisocial, bored, "on something" etc., when that's not what I want to convey.
Maybe it is just to do with the Benefit of the conversation, maybe autistic people are no different when it comes to communication generally, just more specialist or deeper(intro-intrisinic)(made that word up., lol),, so maybe it is the subject matter and the subject(person) are more closely linked in the autistic mind than a NT.
Where we have to communicate ? co-align(good word)..., I find if there is a function purpose to the communication the social engagement makes more sense, than just talking per-say.
A non-benefit conversation, caught between listening and wanting to walk away. Stuck in the middle of social confusion. Any thoughts on how to engage, but not engage when it is non-beneficial. How can I make it beneficial ? or functional reasoned conversation to be more correct.
Granted, social conversation is something you can avoid. It is there to fulfil a need for non-autistic people. However, some social interaction situations are necessary:
One I found critical for me was fitting in in the workplace. I didn't have a choice of colleagues and they expected me to co-align with their little ways that fill in time between 9 and 5. However problems fitting in at work may be crucial to why so many people on the spectrum cannot secure long term work.
You do also have to fraternise in a cafe, or visiting relatives, or during a stay in hospital.
You can opt to avoid ALL social contact but that is rather life restricting.
Let me clarify my original thesis by saying where we have to socialise, could these be factors?
Longman have you try "go with", the reality is,, most people wish a dialogue on the centre of there world and as long as you do not deviate to much from there consenus (aka comformity comfortzone), you will group well and be accepted. I get bored with 90% of all conversations as no one really pushes the question on the intellectual edge. Take any conversation it will have subject matter, but the meme of the subject will be understood at different cognitive classes(IQ) so unless you adapt to there level, which I find can be tiring as 80% of the informaton is irrelevant so it is not an efficient communication sequence, but most people only talk to inflate ego or to jive talk for social benefit relationships etc. Fortunately, I don't need any material gain so I do not need to schmooze to a social consensus nor social bias hierarchy. I am free, to be me.
....for sure. I kind of get used to the same names being here: scorpion, hope, caretwo, imp, autismtwo, silver100 and others. I don't know what these people look like or where they live but the anonymity suits me. I really strugle in 'real world' social situations. Here there is less pressure, time to consider answers and questions. To interact unsing only the brain and the keyboard. It is democratic and makes all the things like facial gestures, tone of voice etc unimportant.
The only thing that bothers me is that if the forum provides people with a support network then that support vanishes if they are unable to access the internet. It could be very final as it is the only method of contact.
You are indeed correct - from mid December until the end of March. It is good to know I was missed.....
btw longman, you were quite active on this forum when I first came on board a last year. am I correct in thinking you vanished for a few months?
Good points there about the derivation of rigid thinking, Jon, thanks. I think you are right about the asperger brain, but getting the 'experts' to consult us when they are trying to understand, treat or "cure" us, is a lot harder. Apparently experts don't think they should listen to the people with the problem
I can relate to what you are saying. But my question is 'why' the rigid thinking?
Sensory overload/issues can lead to processing problems. This would make learning to do things potentially more challenging. Also there is a tendancy to initially learn from the 'gound up' which can come up with good results but maybe slower. Therfore once learnt there is a reluctance to rethink the process.
I read something about 'perceptual consistencies'. People use them as perceptual shortcuts. We all use them. But people on the spectrum may not aquire them as easily. They may focus on the details and not the whole. This is maybe due to focusing the senses to avoid overload? Anyhow the result would maybe that thinking can be rigid.
However for creative thinking regarding something totaly new the Asperger brain might be very well suited? :-)