Interpersonal Traits of Aspies Placed in Context (2014)(gist.github.com)
gist.github.com
Interpersonal Traits of Aspies Placed in Context (2014)
https://gist.github.com/stared/00ce50e95f9bcecc8965feb04650c19d
37 comments
As an autistic person myself, but by no means an expert, I can say a few things. Adding here because there are at least two replies to parent that are the same "well, it seems like a useful list" at time of reply composition.
First: Asperger's syndrome is not actually a recognized diagnosis anymore. It's all just autism and autism spectrum disorder. That's in part because we've recognized that it is all part of the same spectrum, and probably at least in part because Asperger was a Nazi. More about both points here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1
Second, while some of the notes in the gist align with my own personal, lived experience, the vibe of lacking empathy absolutely does not. The Leader article cited in the parent comment aligns better with my own experience at least.
Third, that list is absolutely just a random box of facile observations. Note a particular thing about one particular autistic person, and try to coerce it into aligning with a mental model that you think must be true of all autistic people, with no particular actual supporting evidence.
If you're interested in what it is like to be autistic in an informal way, I recommend trying to get your hands on a copy of "Sensory: Life on the Spectrum" https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schnumn/sensory-life-on... as it is a good, crowd sourced book about all the different ways autism works. If you want a deeper, more scientific analysis of autism, there's plenty of peer reviewed literature out there. But the linked gist in OP is neither (a) peer reviewed literature nor (b) reflective of autistic experience in general at least.
Finally, while some folks self-identity as "aspie", I would find it _extremely_ offensive if anyone used that word to refer to me or anyone else without express permission. Just say "autistic person".
First: Asperger's syndrome is not actually a recognized diagnosis anymore. It's all just autism and autism spectrum disorder. That's in part because we've recognized that it is all part of the same spectrum, and probably at least in part because Asperger was a Nazi. More about both points here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1
Second, while some of the notes in the gist align with my own personal, lived experience, the vibe of lacking empathy absolutely does not. The Leader article cited in the parent comment aligns better with my own experience at least.
Third, that list is absolutely just a random box of facile observations. Note a particular thing about one particular autistic person, and try to coerce it into aligning with a mental model that you think must be true of all autistic people, with no particular actual supporting evidence.
If you're interested in what it is like to be autistic in an informal way, I recommend trying to get your hands on a copy of "Sensory: Life on the Spectrum" https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schnumn/sensory-life-on... as it is a good, crowd sourced book about all the different ways autism works. If you want a deeper, more scientific analysis of autism, there's plenty of peer reviewed literature out there. But the linked gist in OP is neither (a) peer reviewed literature nor (b) reflective of autistic experience in general at least.
Finally, while some folks self-identity as "aspie", I would find it _extremely_ offensive if anyone used that word to refer to me or anyone else without express permission. Just say "autistic person".
> Asperger's syndrome is not actually a recognized diagnosis anymore
True, but it is a recent change. At the time of writing (2014), it was a common term; it still has a Wikipedia page. Just because it uses one word or another, it does not make an article valid or invalid. (I am happy to redefine Asperger/HFA as Xvvbhj for the sake of a discussion.)
I fully agree that there is no meaningful difference between Asperger Syndrome and High Functioning Autism.
> Asperger was a Nazi
Cancel culture at its best. Von Braun was a Nazi. Haber was a Nazi-sympathizer (putting himself in a difficult spot, since he was Jewish) and a horrible person in general. And?
> absolutely just a random box of facile observations.
Well, not. While most people don't hit all checkboxes, these points are very far from random. Happy to bet $100 that there is a statistical difference between autistic and neurotypical.
> "Sensory: Life on the Spectrum"
I don't know this one.
> Finally, while some folks self-identity as "aspie", I would find it _extremely_ offensive if anyone used that word to refer to me or anyone else without express permission.
I find this bizarre. And at least to me (I am autistic), very antithetical to autism. Things are true or not REGARDLESS who says them. I use the term "Aspie" and am equally OK with others referring to me that way.
True, but it is a recent change. At the time of writing (2014), it was a common term; it still has a Wikipedia page. Just because it uses one word or another, it does not make an article valid or invalid. (I am happy to redefine Asperger/HFA as Xvvbhj for the sake of a discussion.)
I fully agree that there is no meaningful difference between Asperger Syndrome and High Functioning Autism.
> Asperger was a Nazi
Cancel culture at its best. Von Braun was a Nazi. Haber was a Nazi-sympathizer (putting himself in a difficult spot, since he was Jewish) and a horrible person in general. And?
> absolutely just a random box of facile observations.
Well, not. While most people don't hit all checkboxes, these points are very far from random. Happy to bet $100 that there is a statistical difference between autistic and neurotypical.
> "Sensory: Life on the Spectrum"
I don't know this one.
> Finally, while some folks self-identity as "aspie", I would find it _extremely_ offensive if anyone used that word to refer to me or anyone else without express permission.
I find this bizarre. And at least to me (I am autistic), very antithetical to autism. Things are true or not REGARDLESS who says them. I use the term "Aspie" and am equally OK with others referring to me that way.
> Cancel culture at its best. Von Braun was a Nazi. Haber was a Nazi-sympathizer (putting himself in a difficult spot, since he was Jewish) and an horrible person in general. And?
Not sure if you read the linked science article, but there is plenty of evidence that Asperger did some terrible stuff. Not surprising, given the interest in eugenics that was wide-spread at the time, but still terrible enough that yeah, we should probably stop naming things after him.
Parenthetically, if you are interested in making an argument where other people presume good faith on your behalf, avoid the term "cancel culture". Like "virtue signaling" it is a turn of phrase that strongly correlates with bad faith argumentation.
Instead of arguing around the point, go straight for it - don't say "cancel culture is bad therefore we cannot ever question the actions of people who did questionable stuff", instead face the actions directly and say "Yes. Asperger sent kids to be killed because he didn't want their parents to spend time caring for humans he saw as a drain on society, but he did all this other great stuff trying to highlight how 'autistic psychopaths' (his words) would strengthen German society, so we clearly should continue respecting him". Or whatever it is you respect about Hans, you should be able to say, "Despite all the heinous stuff he did, I respect him because of XYZ". Personally, I am all for canceling Asperger (op. cit).
When you just complain about "cancel culture" and don't address the core issue, it is intellectually lazy.
As to the central thesis here- I'm sure that there are different between neurotypical and autistic people. I'm even sure that those differences cluster. That's not the point of the linked article (or its sole source, which others have pointed out is also unsourced) and it is bad faith to argue otherwise.
The linked article claims single causes for most of the claimed observations, almost always rooted in a supposed (and incorrect) universal lack of empathy. Some autistic people behave in a way that implies a lack of empathy, but (a) not all and (b) that only means neurotypicals think they lack empathy, whether or not they do is another thing entirely.
Presenting an unsourced laundry list encourages people to presume that all autistic people are alike, and that the phenomenon is well-understood. It is reductive, and no more useful that any other "scientific" stereotype about race or gender (or zodiac sign for that matter).
On "aspie", I've seen the word used as a dismissive insult too often to consider it a label I'd appreciate applied to me. But that is kind of why I hedged it. If you want to call yourself that, go for it. I mainly wanted to highlight that it is a fraught term and that it is not universally applicable.
Not sure if you read the linked science article, but there is plenty of evidence that Asperger did some terrible stuff. Not surprising, given the interest in eugenics that was wide-spread at the time, but still terrible enough that yeah, we should probably stop naming things after him.
Parenthetically, if you are interested in making an argument where other people presume good faith on your behalf, avoid the term "cancel culture". Like "virtue signaling" it is a turn of phrase that strongly correlates with bad faith argumentation.
Instead of arguing around the point, go straight for it - don't say "cancel culture is bad therefore we cannot ever question the actions of people who did questionable stuff", instead face the actions directly and say "Yes. Asperger sent kids to be killed because he didn't want their parents to spend time caring for humans he saw as a drain on society, but he did all this other great stuff trying to highlight how 'autistic psychopaths' (his words) would strengthen German society, so we clearly should continue respecting him". Or whatever it is you respect about Hans, you should be able to say, "Despite all the heinous stuff he did, I respect him because of XYZ". Personally, I am all for canceling Asperger (op. cit).
When you just complain about "cancel culture" and don't address the core issue, it is intellectually lazy.
As to the central thesis here- I'm sure that there are different between neurotypical and autistic people. I'm even sure that those differences cluster. That's not the point of the linked article (or its sole source, which others have pointed out is also unsourced) and it is bad faith to argue otherwise.
The linked article claims single causes for most of the claimed observations, almost always rooted in a supposed (and incorrect) universal lack of empathy. Some autistic people behave in a way that implies a lack of empathy, but (a) not all and (b) that only means neurotypicals think they lack empathy, whether or not they do is another thing entirely.
Presenting an unsourced laundry list encourages people to presume that all autistic people are alike, and that the phenomenon is well-understood. It is reductive, and no more useful that any other "scientific" stereotype about race or gender (or zodiac sign for that matter).
On "aspie", I've seen the word used as a dismissive insult too often to consider it a label I'd appreciate applied to me. But that is kind of why I hedged it. If you want to call yourself that, go for it. I mainly wanted to highlight that it is a fraught term and that it is not universally applicable.
When it comes to the "cancel culture" - let me clarify: I make no claims on Asperger as a person.
Even more, I distrust the very concept of heroes, examples, geniuses, role models, and any other flawless characters. This concept makes one prompt to idealize and whitewash these people, or condemn. There is no middle ground + often, we don't know all details.
If there is X's Syndrom/Theorem/Machine, X may turn out to be a wonderful person, a horrible person (by our current standards, or even by standards of their time & culture), or anything in between.
> The linked article claims single causes for most of the claimed observations, almost always rooted in a supposed (and incorrect) universal lack of empathy.
I hate when people equate or imply that autism has anything to do with the lack of empathy. I was on the receiving end (mostly in person) and saw it many times off It felt the worst when I was deeply moved (or even more than others), but "failed" to show that in a neurotypical way.
The same - when people use "autism"/"autistic"/"aspie" etc, it is usually positive/neutral when they refer to the actual aspect of neurodivergence. I act when they use "autistic" as an insult (usually implying the lack of empathy), regardless if pointed at autistic people or not (usually the latter).
When I read the attached PDF (to the post, so - the full article), it didn't seem to me to be anything in the trope of "psychopathy" or even "egoism" (I was accused of it a lot). It felt that it knows the difference between "perceived empathy" and "empathy".
Even more, I distrust the very concept of heroes, examples, geniuses, role models, and any other flawless characters. This concept makes one prompt to idealize and whitewash these people, or condemn. There is no middle ground + often, we don't know all details.
If there is X's Syndrom/Theorem/Machine, X may turn out to be a wonderful person, a horrible person (by our current standards, or even by standards of their time & culture), or anything in between.
> The linked article claims single causes for most of the claimed observations, almost always rooted in a supposed (and incorrect) universal lack of empathy.
I hate when people equate or imply that autism has anything to do with the lack of empathy. I was on the receiving end (mostly in person) and saw it many times off It felt the worst when I was deeply moved (or even more than others), but "failed" to show that in a neurotypical way.
The same - when people use "autism"/"autistic"/"aspie" etc, it is usually positive/neutral when they refer to the actual aspect of neurodivergence. I act when they use "autistic" as an insult (usually implying the lack of empathy), regardless if pointed at autistic people or not (usually the latter).
When I read the attached PDF (to the post, so - the full article), it didn't seem to me to be anything in the trope of "psychopathy" or even "egoism" (I was accused of it a lot). It felt that it knows the difference between "perceived empathy" and "empathy".
I disagree.
As someone on the autism spectrum and who read A LOT about high-functioning autism (including recent research papers, books, commentaries, discussions in autism communities), I still found a lot of helpful material in this article. Moreover, thanks to that, it helped me a lot with one of my relationships (with a geeky but non-autistic person).
> clearly not written with any level of empathy for autistic people
I find this statement bizarre. And yes, there are tons of materials without empathy towards autistic people. This one isn't.
As someone on the autism spectrum and who read A LOT about high-functioning autism (including recent research papers, books, commentaries, discussions in autism communities), I still found a lot of helpful material in this article. Moreover, thanks to that, it helped me a lot with one of my relationships (with a geeky but non-autistic person).
> clearly not written with any level of empathy for autistic people
I find this statement bizarre. And yes, there are tons of materials without empathy towards autistic people. This one isn't.
You may think that, but these notes basically explain everything I've been missing for years from my own "Unwritten Handbook of Social Interactions".
IMO this is what makes it dangerous. Content like this gains currency by providing simplistic but "useful" models for common situations. But it packages them up with a worldview or ontology that isn't so great.
So it's better to know none of this (even if partly incorrect) and struggle with social interactions for years? No, thanks.
Or there's that ASHA link the parent dropped. The road not taken in this dichotomy.
Disagree strongly. Had I seen something like this when I was younger, entire categories of social interaction would have made far more sense.
Astrology and phrenology are similar, in that they provide models for interfacing with the world. They're great where the Venn diagrams overlap with reality, the problems arise where they diverge.
Which parts in specific would you say are wrong?
Likewise the other commenter, I really do find the list enlightening. Do you have a specific criticism of the things in the list?
(I am not an aspie myself, but I have a coworker, who is most likely an aspie, as I suspected for several years, and many of the observations from the list do seem to be spot on. And he just threw a tantrum yesterday, because they closed our office again due to COVID, and he really doesn't like working from home, unlike most people. The "parallel play" explanation does really make lot of sense about why he feels that way.)
(I am not an aspie myself, but I have a coworker, who is most likely an aspie, as I suspected for several years, and many of the observations from the list do seem to be spot on. And he just threw a tantrum yesterday, because they closed our office again due to COVID, and he really doesn't like working from home, unlike most people. The "parallel play" explanation does really make lot of sense about why he feels that way.)
The issue is broader than one or two specific criticisms. It's the attitude and worldview behind the text is the problem. The author leans heavily into stereotypes and treats autistic people as a separate species with uniform deficiencies rather than individual people.
This comment does a good job of explaining it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29359903
Re: your coworker. Diagnosing someone with autism and trying to fit them into a stereotype you have in your head is not a real understanding of anything. Autistic people have complex individual preferences just like non-autistic people. The best way to understand people is to approach them as individuals rather than reaching for cheap generalizations.
This comment does a good job of explaining it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29359903
Re: your coworker. Diagnosing someone with autism and trying to fit them into a stereotype you have in your head is not a real understanding of anything. Autistic people have complex individual preferences just like non-autistic people. The best way to understand people is to approach them as individuals rather than reaching for cheap generalizations.
I don't really understand your objection. It seems to me that you're really objecting to either Asperger's or autism as a category, I don't understand how you can define it without some form of generalization, just by looking at individuals.
I also don't think the author treats these thinking patterns as deficiencies; in fact in the original link, he also notes where they give a definitive advantages.
Regarding the other comment, I always thought that Asperger's was a certain subset of the autism spectrum. Maybe it is not useful as a category, but maybe it is, I am not sure. But I don't really care that much how we categorize things; the reason why I find the list useful is that lot of the described behaviors in it (1) I see in my coworker (and partly also myself) and (2) have a common explanation. Two other points. First, I also don't think OP claims that people on the spectrum lack empathy, but we would have to be more specific, there are different types of empathy. Second, the author of OP is by his own admission also on the spectrum, so I don't see how his experience is in any way inferior to the experience of the other people on the spectrum, which is being suggested as a literature here.
I don't think this kind of generalization is stereotyping; if I can correctly generalize and predict the way you think out of the myriad of your individual preferences and behaviors, it is useful for you as an individual. Stereotyping is something else, it's attributing traits to others based on some classification of them, rather than their own behavior.
Specifically, regarding my coworker, I don't attribute these thinking patterns to him based on whether he is on the spectrum (I don't know, and I don't care), that would be stereotyping, but rather I observe a lot of the patterns in him, and therefore I think that he is on the spectrum. But maybe, because of everybody on the spectrum has a different experience, it is not useful to think about it that way.
That however doesn't contradict that the thinking patterns described in the OP share a certain way of looking at the world, and as such might be useful, regardless how we call it.
In particular, I can easily see my coworker getting fired (or contributing to it) for what he did yesterday (it was pretty scary, TBH), and I don't want that (luckily, I was the only witness). That's what could easily happen if we just naively assume him being neurotypical, that is, without looking at his individuality. And that's where I disagree with you that generalization like OP did is always harmful. In this case, general understanding of his thinking patterns by his coworkers might actually help him and others to avoid these problems (the feedback loop of negativity) in the future.
In other words, you could use the OP's list correctly or incorrectly. Correct would be to look what behaviors are in a particular individual, and use the common explanation as a possible guide. Incorrect would be to assume that since you see some of them in an individual, they will also have other traits from that list. It seems to me you're really objecting to the incorrect usage, which is a logical error, but it doesn't really invalidate the explanation that is behind (at least some of) the items in the list.
Addendum: I find meta-amusing that you write: "The author leans heavily into stereotypes and treats autistic people as a separate species with uniform deficiencies rather than individual people."
Isn't that something you would exactly expect from somebody thinking like a person with the traits in the list, who is trying to "logically" (and perhaps in a bit of a black/white fashion) understand the world, without much regard about social mores?
I also don't think the author treats these thinking patterns as deficiencies; in fact in the original link, he also notes where they give a definitive advantages.
Regarding the other comment, I always thought that Asperger's was a certain subset of the autism spectrum. Maybe it is not useful as a category, but maybe it is, I am not sure. But I don't really care that much how we categorize things; the reason why I find the list useful is that lot of the described behaviors in it (1) I see in my coworker (and partly also myself) and (2) have a common explanation. Two other points. First, I also don't think OP claims that people on the spectrum lack empathy, but we would have to be more specific, there are different types of empathy. Second, the author of OP is by his own admission also on the spectrum, so I don't see how his experience is in any way inferior to the experience of the other people on the spectrum, which is being suggested as a literature here.
I don't think this kind of generalization is stereotyping; if I can correctly generalize and predict the way you think out of the myriad of your individual preferences and behaviors, it is useful for you as an individual. Stereotyping is something else, it's attributing traits to others based on some classification of them, rather than their own behavior.
Specifically, regarding my coworker, I don't attribute these thinking patterns to him based on whether he is on the spectrum (I don't know, and I don't care), that would be stereotyping, but rather I observe a lot of the patterns in him, and therefore I think that he is on the spectrum. But maybe, because of everybody on the spectrum has a different experience, it is not useful to think about it that way.
That however doesn't contradict that the thinking patterns described in the OP share a certain way of looking at the world, and as such might be useful, regardless how we call it.
In particular, I can easily see my coworker getting fired (or contributing to it) for what he did yesterday (it was pretty scary, TBH), and I don't want that (luckily, I was the only witness). That's what could easily happen if we just naively assume him being neurotypical, that is, without looking at his individuality. And that's where I disagree with you that generalization like OP did is always harmful. In this case, general understanding of his thinking patterns by his coworkers might actually help him and others to avoid these problems (the feedback loop of negativity) in the future.
In other words, you could use the OP's list correctly or incorrectly. Correct would be to look what behaviors are in a particular individual, and use the common explanation as a possible guide. Incorrect would be to assume that since you see some of them in an individual, they will also have other traits from that list. It seems to me you're really objecting to the incorrect usage, which is a logical error, but it doesn't really invalidate the explanation that is behind (at least some of) the items in the list.
Addendum: I find meta-amusing that you write: "The author leans heavily into stereotypes and treats autistic people as a separate species with uniform deficiencies rather than individual people."
Isn't that something you would exactly expect from somebody thinking like a person with the traits in the list, who is trying to "logically" (and perhaps in a bit of a black/white fashion) understand the world, without much regard about social mores?
>The best way to understand people is to approach them as individuals rather than reaching for cheap generalizations
Unfortunately the alternative to the cheap constructed stereotype is the implicit assumed stereotype of "normal" or "neurotypical." Humans can't realistically enter into social relations without pre-existing expectations and assumptions. Having MORE stereotypes to work with is better than fitting everyone into a smaller set of stereotypes.
Unfortunately the alternative to the cheap constructed stereotype is the implicit assumed stereotype of "normal" or "neurotypical." Humans can't realistically enter into social relations without pre-existing expectations and assumptions. Having MORE stereotypes to work with is better than fitting everyone into a smaller set of stereotypes.
There's plenty of autism in my family, I've read plenty on it, have plenty of personal experience, and plenty of empathy for autistic people. That said, most of this list hits home, and not just in a surface-way.
I don't see how this article is a better model, or even how it contradicts anything in the OP. You have just stated this without evidence, or even an argument.
I've noticed all of these things in myself. I consciously reduced half of them and very deliberately kept or even amplified the rest!
As an aspie myself, quite a few of these are accurate, but a number of them are just plain apologism. For example, Empathy (and pragmatism!) allows face-saving, but from an informational point-of-view, it contaminates the database and aspies are more dedicated to keeping the record clear and accurate. If you are an aspie or are good friends with one, you know this is in no way a dedication to objectivity, because it ends at our own skin. We are not good at accepting criticism, especially valid and accurate criticism. We feel humiliation very, oftentimes unreasonably, strongly.
Being different from most people does not mean all our differences are disabilities, but at the same time it also doesn't mean none of them are. Stop romanticizing it and recognize that explanations are not excuses for being an asshole. We are not tragically misunderstood ubermensch and the world would not be a better place if everyone was like us.
Being different from most people does not mean all our differences are disabilities, but at the same time it also doesn't mean none of them are. Stop romanticizing it and recognize that explanations are not excuses for being an asshole. We are not tragically misunderstood ubermensch and the world would not be a better place if everyone was like us.
>We are not good at accepting criticism, especially valid and accurate criticism.
That's not quite how I would characterise it. I am not particularly good at accepting valid and accurate criticism if nothing actionable follows from the critique.
Thanks for the information. I already know all that you've told me about myself. I just don't know how to fix it (and I've tried a bunch of things that you are likely to recommend next).
Said differently: I have no tactful way of telling you that your feedback is worthless.
That's not quite how I would characterise it. I am not particularly good at accepting valid and accurate criticism if nothing actionable follows from the critique.
Thanks for the information. I already know all that you've told me about myself. I just don't know how to fix it (and I've tried a bunch of things that you are likely to recommend next).
Said differently: I have no tactful way of telling you that your feedback is worthless.
Hmm, are you sure you're not making an ironic meta-error here? It seem like the author is allowing "aspies"[1] to save face by saying their behaviour is well-intentioned i.e. "dedicated to keeping the record clear and accurate", but not actually excusing that behaviour.
And taking into account what you wrote about criticism, I hope this doesn't come across too harshly.
[1] I'm not completely sure how acceptable it is to use this particular term
And taking into account what you wrote about criticism, I hope this doesn't come across too harshly.
[1] I'm not completely sure how acceptable it is to use this particular term
There's a thing that shows up with animals, where the most vicious, aggressive species tend to be the ones with poor eyesight, because they can't tell harmless movement from threatening movement, so they have to treat everything as a threat and attack "back" preemptively.
I think something similar is going on with aspies and criticism, where poor social judgment forces them to treat every criticism as an attempt to attack their social standing.
Though also, disagreement with feedback can look like inability to accept criticism when people aren't actually looking for acceptance but submission. Call it 50/50.
edit: oh I read the article and it refers to criticism of others by the aspie. Nevermind then!
I think something similar is going on with aspies and criticism, where poor social judgment forces them to treat every criticism as an attempt to attack their social standing.
Though also, disagreement with feedback can look like inability to accept criticism when people aren't actually looking for acceptance but submission. Call it 50/50.
edit: oh I read the article and it refers to criticism of others by the aspie. Nevermind then!
> We are not good at accepting criticism, especially valid and accurate criticism. We feel humiliation very, oftentimes unreasonably, strongly.
I'm not sure why you are using plural, as autism manifests in various different forms and traits are not universal. I know a few people on the spectrum, who are pretty good with criticism and does not feel humiliation the way, you described it. So please don't do it as autism is spectrum and people on the spectrum can be very different. Using plural form leads to stereotyping and however it seems society would prefer to put "aspies" in a box, most of the people sticking out from the box left and right. (My favourite example is one of my excollegue, who is an extrovert aspie)
I'm not sure why you are using plural, as autism manifests in various different forms and traits are not universal. I know a few people on the spectrum, who are pretty good with criticism and does not feel humiliation the way, you described it. So please don't do it as autism is spectrum and people on the spectrum can be very different. Using plural form leads to stereotyping and however it seems society would prefer to put "aspies" in a box, most of the people sticking out from the box left and right. (My favourite example is one of my excollegue, who is an extrovert aspie)
It is often different in women.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-it-s-diffe...
I wish I'd found this years ago. It may not be accurate, but it's hell of a lot better than literally not knowing all of these things about social interaction.
I don't think I was born as an aspie, but I developed a large number of these traits in my late teenage/early 20s by consciously adopting a black-and-white approach towards truth and reality, and a consequent value system.
My profession rewarded some of these traits at first. Later in my mid twenties, I switched into performing arts and over a period of 7 years, I have been able to reverse many of these patterns of behavior because they were coming in my way (and now my old friends barely recognize me duh).
Is there any research on attempts to change these traits in someone who is diagnosed to be on the spectrum?
I don't mean to suggest these traits are inherently good or bad. For me, personality change was like pulling teeth, day after day. But I did it purely to learn a new field, not because I was previously "wrong". I'm curious about any attempt at changing personality, in any direction, because it's so deeply educational.
My profession rewarded some of these traits at first. Later in my mid twenties, I switched into performing arts and over a period of 7 years, I have been able to reverse many of these patterns of behavior because they were coming in my way (and now my old friends barely recognize me duh).
Is there any research on attempts to change these traits in someone who is diagnosed to be on the spectrum?
I don't mean to suggest these traits are inherently good or bad. For me, personality change was like pulling teeth, day after day. But I did it purely to learn a new field, not because I was previously "wrong". I'm curious about any attempt at changing personality, in any direction, because it's so deeply educational.
This is quite interesting. Are you able to share any more info about your journey?
It seems partially accurate but also very stereotypical and some points are flat out wrong, I've met enough fellow aspies to have seen a lot of diversity in how we behave. And even in myself many of the problems on this list I became aware of decades ago, have worked on and are no longer a significant problem.
Yeah, this list is quite hit-or-miss, and seems to be more miss than hit the farther down you go. It doesn't help that many of these are phrased in absolutes (e.g. "all aspies hate X", "aspies always prefer Y").
Interesting list, though I’m not clear why this author is credible. Did I miss something there (the linked PDF lacks any research citations or bibliography)? Regardless, I hope this topic being high ranking on HN will help some people who might be coming across this info for the first time.
I know HN has a predominately male audience, so it might be useful for readers to know that Autism spectrum behaviors have been shown through research to present pretty differently in women. This list didn’t touch much on romantic and sexual aspects of interpersonal dynamics. Learning about this has helped me understand myself better and support other women on the spectrum more graciously https://www.aane.org/women-asperger-profiles/
It has made me curious about my own mother, and also the developmental journey kids of my friends on the spectrum. I hope this will add to the conversation.
I know HN has a predominately male audience, so it might be useful for readers to know that Autism spectrum behaviors have been shown through research to present pretty differently in women. This list didn’t touch much on romantic and sexual aspects of interpersonal dynamics. Learning about this has helped me understand myself better and support other women on the spectrum more graciously https://www.aane.org/women-asperger-profiles/
It has made me curious about my own mother, and also the developmental journey kids of my friends on the spectrum. I hope this will add to the conversation.
Methinks the first items are missing the point.
All the body language, eye contact etc are lab analysis. I'd bet a few dollars that even very autistic people will get this (after all many are very very intelligent) if could look at a broader panel of emotions in other people and how interacting with each others is kind of a dance act.
If you go too much into your own head while speaking to someone you will forget the other and miss the so called body language cues. The cues are not the point, getting carried away on one's own little narrative is. If you try to see talking as a simple fun exchange, to share things and keep a bit on the same track, together.
Maybe autistic people have the logical pursuit as the only mode of pleasure and have this reflex to exchange with other similarly-minded people (you teach me something new, I teach you something new) but most people just want to share simpler things and find fun, safety to an extent.
My 2 cents
All the body language, eye contact etc are lab analysis. I'd bet a few dollars that even very autistic people will get this (after all many are very very intelligent) if could look at a broader panel of emotions in other people and how interacting with each others is kind of a dance act.
If you go too much into your own head while speaking to someone you will forget the other and miss the so called body language cues. The cues are not the point, getting carried away on one's own little narrative is. If you try to see talking as a simple fun exchange, to share things and keep a bit on the same track, together.
Maybe autistic people have the logical pursuit as the only mode of pleasure and have this reflex to exchange with other similarly-minded people (you teach me something new, I teach you something new) but most people just want to share simpler things and find fun, safety to an extent.
My 2 cents
Logical pursuit is not the only mode of pleasure for us, but it is one of the most profound. It's like starting with a single brick and building a castle, and we want to show our friends the castle and, even more impressively, how we went from single brick to castle. Sharing the pleasure of appreciating this sort of thing is a basis for deep friendship. Just "being there", going to parties or watching football games or whatever it is normies do with their friends -- it's something some of us can do, but it does not forge such deep or strong bonds for us.
I understand, I probably have some autistic traits. But you gotta understand how other people operate, and not converge only to the restricted group that resonates to your own tune. That said, as I tried to hint above, it's a bidirectional thing, you're under no obligation to enjoy what others do. To them these events are sometimes profound (you may have jumped of joy watching a sporting event, or enjoyed a good group laughter some nights) too. It's just different. Oh and the normies might also like deep intellectual enlightenment too, the IQ is just distributed on the gaussian, some need the right context and pedagogy.
I'm aspie and I eventually learned to treat my condition by being "an alien sociologist studying humans with the goal of emulating them well enough to pass as one". For most of these topics, I've leearned to recognize them from "features" (why yes, I work in machine learning...) and found what behaviors seem to make people happier or unhappier, and adjusted my behavior accordingly.
It hasn't been easy. I can't really recommend it. I had to do it because at the time (when rain man came out), people didn't really understand that there are people with far milder forms of autism who learn to cope (at some amount of personal strain).
Many years after high school, my ex-girlfriend said something to me that enlightened me greatly. "That one time when we were sitting together listening to music, why didn't you make a move? In retrospect, I should have initiated". I never ever initiated anything with a woman because, to be honest, I hate rejection, and I can't tell flirting from actual interest. Over the years I've learned women's signs that they want a man to make a move but I also wish society would just switch over to "anybody can initiate".
It hasn't been easy. I can't really recommend it. I had to do it because at the time (when rain man came out), people didn't really understand that there are people with far milder forms of autism who learn to cope (at some amount of personal strain).
Many years after high school, my ex-girlfriend said something to me that enlightened me greatly. "That one time when we were sitting together listening to music, why didn't you make a move? In retrospect, I should have initiated". I never ever initiated anything with a woman because, to be honest, I hate rejection, and I can't tell flirting from actual interest. Over the years I've learned women's signs that they want a man to make a move but I also wish society would just switch over to "anybody can initiate".
>sudo systemctl start anybody_can_initiate.service
A better model for autistic people to understand their interpersonal problems is Milton's "double empathy problem." You can read more here: https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR2.25042020.58