Gaining social skills is a matter of change of attitude

Post Reply New Topic

I believe gaining social skills requires a fundamental change of attitude.

That attitude should be that people are not equal.

The strongest individuals are more important than the weakest in the sense that the group/society should favour the strong individuals over the weak. It is more important that highly successful individuals get children than unsuccessful individuals. This benefits society in the end.

As the socially disabled individuals we are as autistics we should accept we are worth less than many successful neurotypicals. In return of putting up with being made fun of will we be taken care of (as some of the last individuals however - the successful eat first and most, we eat last and least, you know).


I have no interest in adopting that view on other people, and so no interest in "bettering" my social skills.


How do you feel about adopting that attitude?

I won't adopt it, either.

But I do think we can learn communication skills without adopting the idea that a social hierarchy is right.

Learning how to get ideas from one brain to another is not really related to believing in the inherent inferiority of some people. Just knowing how to talk, to listen, to understand--that's worth learning.

BTW: Society also benefits from everyone being included. Diversity means many ways of thinking, which means many ways of solving problems, which increases the odds that problems will be solved. Society is weakened by social hierarchies that exclude those who are different.

Of course not.

Interestingly to counter the unstated view that what you say currently exists, the lowest people on the socioeconomic totem pole tend to have the most kids.

I think this assumption is wrong. You don't need to think people are not equal in order to improve your social skills.


I won't adopt it.

I highly doubt those who think highly of themselves would adopt that attitude, why should autistics?

A change in attitude is needed in a lot of people. Not just for autistics and not just for the benefit of social skills.

Those that talk the most have social abilities but not necessarily skilled.

If you do think people are equal you will not be able to properly join NT-groups in society (unless you can convince them you are the alpha of the group), because the NTs will be annoyed that you do not act according to your social ranking.

Thinking people are equal is a clear manifestation of basic lack of social skills. I do not say that to offend you in any way, seeing as I have that belief myself!




That's great to hear (:

That isn't how human social groups work though.

I will go ahead and agree that people are not equal, but I don't see what that has to do with social skills. I also don't buy into the idea that, since people aren't equal, it's okay to treat some people like s**t whilst licking the boots of others.

I tend to think you can be sure many people think of that as a problem.

It is, because humans have social hierarchies. They have pack mentality.

Last edited by qawer on 06 Jan 2014, 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A lot of complaints on here seem to have a lot to do with these NT vs Aspie. Yet, the more I read it, the more I start to realize that people on this website believe their social skills are worse than they really are. Let's face it. We don't talk a whole lot, and when we do talk, it's about things that have meaning to us and hopefully to the people we are speaking to. We typically enjoy one-on-one conversations a lot more than we enjoy group conversations. Yet, somehow we keep mistaking this for Aspergers. I'm also willing to bet that a lot of people on here are better listeners than they are speakers.

Remember that a lot of people on this website were likely Introverted and developed social skills well. But because people couldn't accept the fact we didn't talk much, we started believing that something was wrong with us. Our school systems prepare people for workplaces that value talkers more than people who don't talk. Now when we started researching for ourselves what Aspergers or Autism was after being diagnosed, we may have agreed with all the traits it said. But most of these traits indicate introversion mixed with obsessive compulsive disorder.

First I thought what you described was your opinion, but then I got to the end, which indicated the opposite.

Where do you live? Sounds like an awful place.

Saved by the bell

People keep trying to make me adopt that view, but I keep refusing to do it - that actually cost me my job!

I think that the level of social skills varies quite a bit, even from one aspie to another. For example, my brother and I both have AS, and yet I have far better social skills, even adjusting for the age difference. For me at least, my natural social inclinations, while definitely not normal, work well enough that I don't have to change my behavior too much in order to hang around other people. I can definitely hang around my friends without having to really change my behavior; they seem to find my quirks endearing. I don't have issues that make others want to avoid me, like anger problems, an annoying voice, or body odor. Sure, I find NT's very annoying to be around sometimes, due to their highly illogical ideas and behaviors. But I can most certainly play the part with little difficulty, provided I'm in the mood. This is definitely not the case, it would seem, for far too many people here on this site.

Not all groups are hierarchical. Formal groups have a hierarchy but many informal ones do not. Some informal groups have a person who becomes a sort of leader and others don't. Many times, who is the "leader" (not the "alpha"- this term is not applicable to human social groups even though you will find websites saying it is) depends on what the activity is. When I am out with friends, the leadership role morphs and changes if there is a leader at all. If the destination of the group of friends is unknown to all but the person who suggested it, that person will lead until the destination is arrived at. Once there, there is no leader (personal anecdotal example). Things are far more fluid than you are imagining because you are trying to force things to fit your simple model.

Formal groups have a hierarchy. Companies have CEOs and departments within the company have department heads and below them are supervisors. Gangs have gangleaders (to me they qualify as a formal group). Countries have presidents/royalty/whatever and towns have mayors. But here's the weird part: although there is often a feeling of superiority that groups will have towards each other (often with both thinking they are superior), this does not mean that everyone within the group bases personal worth on place in hierarchy. I defer to my department head because he is above me in the hierarchy at work. But this does not mean I think he is "better" than me nor does it mandate him thinking that either. Sometimes people will think these things and sometimes they won't. But it isn't inherent to the system. Different countries have different systems. Perhaps in your country it is so because positions are fixed. But that isn't the only way people organize themselves. Social mobility helps to unlink worth from social position.

Back to the original point: It seems you are observing that people are expected to take orders from those of a higher rank within a formal group (as I do from my boss- even while not thinking it makes me "worth" less) and thinking that this means social skills are equivalent to grading people by worth. It doesn't mean that at all. But social skills do mean that you have to learn how to treat people situationally. This has nothing to do with worth. Nothing. It has everything to do with the situation. Learning how to react to people situationally is a social skill. But this is not related to worth.