• Replies 10 replies
  • Subscribers 95 subscribers
  • Views 2673 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

door handles and adapting to social situations

longman

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?

Parents

  • 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.

    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.

Reply

  • 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.

    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.

Children
No Data