“A Field Guide to Earthlings” – Is this for Real?

Post Reply New Topic

The standard NT reaction (assuming they did not know they were interacting with an Aspie) would be to assume that the patterns were being ignored intentionally. They would then attempt to come up with a motivation for why somebody would ignore them intentionally. (This is where the NT Theory of Mind breaks down so horribly- the ascribed motivations always assume the other person is NT.) The best case scenario is that the ascribed motivation is benign- that the (AS) person ignored the patterns because they were just so darned mentally busy doing something else. The (AS) person gets assigned the Absent Minded Eccentric Professor stereotype. But a more common and far worse scenario is to ascribe a bad motivation such as arrogance or intentional emotional cruelty.

A potential benefit of autism education and awareness is to add "maybe he/she is autistic" to the short list of potential reasons why a person would ignore the communication patterns. This comes with its' own problems but it must be better than assuming that intentional emotional cruelty or arrogance is the reason.



In my initial post in this thread I did say that I wondered if a couple of my highschool friends were Aspies. They did seem to just ignore some communication conventions. Retroactively I wonder if they weren't aware of them, rather than ignoring them. But they were good friends and we did get along well even if some communication was a little odd. I mentally assigned them the Absent Minded Eccentric Professor stereotype and so did other people and we would say, "Don't mind X, he's just always like that" ("that" meaning ignoring some or another conversation convention). Getting assigned the Eccentric stereotype rather than the Arrogant %$#%#@ stereotype depends quite a bit on how "likeable" you are, which is hard to parse.




Correct. And if you had been born a long time ago, somebody would have sent you to a Dale Carnegie seminar. He wrote How To Win Friends And Influence People in 1937 which is the very first book of this interaction self help genre. Back then there were Dale Carnegie seminars where people would be explicitly taught how to work all these things to their advantage specifically to succeed in business. It would have addressed everything you had problems with at work. Alas you were born too late and those seminars have been discontinued for decades.



Other posters can address this better since they are the ones who have actually done it.Here are a few of my guesses

It might help to schedule breaks. When you go to the bathroom, stay there a little bit longer than you need to (unless there is a line forming).

Try to do activities when interacting with others. If you are doing something like fussing with your camera, grilling the burgers, anything, really then people are more likely to attribute you missing a non-verbal to your being preoccupied with the activity. It also gives you something concrete to talk about that could potentially make small talk easier.

Yeah, I read a different book like that called "You Just Don't Understand" by Deborah Tannen, and I felt like I fall on the masculine side of communication -- I like to exchange ideas and information. It's the NT women who are the most difficult to communicate with for me. They are the ones who try to "do" things with their talking more than men do. Men may use communication to establish power, but I have been better at establishing myself in their social strata than at listening to women talking about the shoes they bought at TJ Maxx the other day. I have learned to compliment women on their accessories, but I don't ask them, "Where did you get that?" because I just don't care. If I were a man, this would be seen as acceptable communication by the women I talk to, but because I am a woman, they all see me as awkward, and I just don't fit in. Also, because often the information I am exchanging is about me when I talk to my husband, he tends to hear it as complaining, and I don't know what I am doing wrong with my tone or facial expressions to make him think that. Like, the other day, I told him that my weight had fluctuated by 3 lbs after I weighed myself in the gym, in what I thought was a matter-of-fact tone, and he took that as a complaint -- is he just assuming that's a complaint because I am a woman?
I feel like gender might just be the issue for those of us with ASDs -- we don't tend to conform fully to either gender norm when it comes to communication, so we're not part of either "club." That, I think, is why I get along best with LGBT, etc., people because they also do not fit the gender norms and are more open minded to different communication styles.

Janissy - Thanks for your insight. It's invaluable.

It's funny. Just this evening, my younger daughter (who I suspect is an NT) was watching some TV show called "Dance Moms". After I watched it for 2 minutes, the following dialog occurred:

Rocket: "This is a Dumb Show"
Daughter: "You're Dumb"
Rocket: "Why are you calling me Dumb?"
Daughter: "You called me Dumb"
Rocket [Perplexed]: "No. I said the Show was Dumb, not You"

If I recall, this is one of the 62 patterns described in the book. I forgot which one. Again, I plan to read it again and take notes.

After thinking about it a bit, this has an interesting implication. If I want to effectively relate with NTs, I need to be much more careful about what I say. Apparently, it is really easy to insult NTs. And, given my work history (which is where most of my social interaction has occurred during the past 25 years), I have pretty much failed (in terms of relating well with others). Again. I am not certain I have the cycles to consciously filter every thought. It's almost easier to keep my mouth closed (and leave my thoughts/comments/opinions/etc. to myself). I suppose I also need to figure out how to mask any facial expressions as well. Yikes. Now I understand why I cherish my alone time.

By the way, if you have time, there's another posting (on page 3), where your expertise could be used.

Rocket: "This is a Dumb Show"
Daughter: "You're Dumb"
Rocket: "Why are you calling me Dumb?"
Daughter: "You called me Dumb"
Rocket [Perplexed]: "No. I said the Show was Dumb, not You"

Liking the same things seems to be interpreted as liking the person. weird but that's the way they play!

I've noticed that when people don't seem to have much information to communicate the default mode of conversation is 'liking the same things'. The conversation words mean nothing. The messsage is deep: I like you , you like me, I've got your back, you've got my back, etc etc

when people talk about their favourite sports teams , they can be having this conversation.

It's Pattern 25: Inferring By Association. If you look it up, you will see that the author gives an example that is quite similar to this quoted conversation. His example is somebody who says that they don't like pandas when looking at the panda logo of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The listener hears the inferrence "I don't like the WWF"

Author's example:

Speaker: "I don't like pandas" (while looking at panda logo of WWF)

association: pandas>>>>WWF

Inferrence By Association: "I don't like the WWF."

Your conversation example:

You: "This is a dumb show" (while looking at show on TV)

association: show>>>>>daughter's enjoyment of show>>>>>>daughter

Inferrence By Association: "You are dumb"


It is complicated if you have to parse it out in your head like I did above. That would be pretty hard to do in real time and it's just one of 62 Patterns. Reading the book cover to cover in one go like an NT does (like I did) is probably not the best way to approach this. That would be Forest First Learning (Pattern 13) and not likely to be succesful for you. The author describes Trees First Learning as the best way for AS people: learning individual elements and assembling them into a whole. The author has picked out 62 individual elements so looking at them individually might be a better approach. You already noticed Pattern 25 Inferring By Association. If you look around, you will see many, many, many more examples of this one pattern. If you focus just on pattern 25, you will become expert at spotting it. Then try another single pattern.

That's just my idea which may or may not work for you. But reading the book cover to cover and trying to learn all 62 simultaneously seems like it would be much harder than concentrating on one at a time.

This thread blows my mind...I'm going to have to read that book. I intellectually understand that there is non-verbal communication of some sort going on but exactly what they're communicating and how is confusing to me. I've heard the adage that 90% of communication is non-verbal but that doesn't mean I detect or understand it. Most NTs must figure I'm an arrogant jerk because I've gotten yelled at "out of the blue" (to me) quite often in my life. I didn't realize NTs think I'm intentionally ignoring their...what is it? Body language? Verbal cues that have sub-textual meaning? When, in fact, I'm unable to perceive it, but that doesn't cross their minds the way it would when communicating with a blind or deaf person. I don't know that there's any way to master this if it all has to be consciously interpreted and applied. This just makes me want to become a recluse. I think it would be better if people thought I was shy rather than a jerk.

Incidentally, I had no peer group in high school that I associated with in particular. I guess I was viewed as a "loner". It never occurred to me to choose a group. I also didn't date in high school. I was reasonably attactive but I was never asked out by a boy and I can't say I was all that interested in being asked out. ( I didn't actually realize I was attracted to women until my 30s.) But I'm thinking now that was probably never asked out because I didn't belong to their pack. Not to mention my behavior must have been odd to them. I still wonder how much I pass as NT. I'm starting to think I'm the only one who thinks I present as normal.

I think, in part, you are right. There is less adherence to gender norms within the LGBT but I still experience some expectation to conform to their sub-cultural norms. One glaring one is being politically liberal. My partner and I are not liberals and have been "outsiders" in that community also as a result. We don't really have LGBT friends, just some acquaintances that seem unsure of our allegiances, but are polite because that's what NTs do, I guess. We primarily associate with my partner's extended family.

I find this practice very annoying because I can't process what they are saying while they are still talking - it's like overfilling a water bucket.

I haven't read the book, and while I am aware that patterns exist, I try not to use them as my guide. It is easy to become overly concerned about determining the pattern, when I should be "staying in the moment," and reacting to what is actually happening around me.

I am an AS man married to an NT woman. I will give you my point of view. My wife a lot of times keeps telling me that she feels fat. I reassure her that she isn't and I still find her beautiful like the day I met her and the day I married her. She still goes on about it. No matter what I do I can't get her to see otherwise when she is in this zone. For me, it can become frustrating and annoying.

Your husband may be interpreting it the same way. I have to ask if you weren't complaining about your weight then what purpose did it serve to just out of the blue tell your husband that your weight fluctuated by 3 lbs?

Janissy - Yes - That makes sense. Thanks...

So...Is there a "conforming" pattern? Where:

Case A: If an individual (or perhaps a group) indicate that, "I like Show X", the other person is supposed to agree (by saying a positive comment about Show X)?

Case B: If an individual (or perhaps a group) indicate that, "I dislike Show X", the other person is supposed to agree (by saying a negative comment about Show X)?

Almost like the the other person is supposed to wait until another's opinion is stated, before making his/her own opinion known. So, as to not make an individual "feel bad".

Also, is it generally true that a person is supposed to withhold their opinion until someone of higher status (or rank) makes their opinion known first? As it could be a faux pas if a person says something and later finds out that their opinion is opposite someone of higher status.

As a side note, I am beginning to understand my problem (well, one of many - LOL). While I do have respect for some people (based upon my own personal definition of what is status worthy), I oftentimes reject society's definition of status/rank. This has gotten me into trouble many times. I suppose if I want to be more "successful" (by this, I mean not be, uhh, blacklisted by the NT community), I need to change my “approach”. Sigh.

Also, I am guessing, that Aspies are oftentimes the people with the lowest amount of status. Based upon this, it’s almost as if we should withhold any opinion, until we know what the group thinks. And simply agree with that. That is, if we want to be successful in the NT game. I now understand why I have been a non-conformist. I don’t like these methods imposed by NT society.



This makes a lot of sense. And is appropriate for me (as I am a tree-first learner). Thanks for the suggestion.

I wholeheartedly agree (about becoming a recluse). This entire thing sounds way too complicated. What's amazing is that NTs can do it subconsciously.

In most of the cases I've read here on WP*, the Aspie in question has low social status.

And based on that, I can't reasonably disagree with your position, if what you are trying to do is avoid losing status inside that group.

AgentPalpatine - When I wrote the above, I was thinking about two specific past incidents:
- One came up in the working world (but seems to repeat itself all the time)
- The other came up while I served as a member of a committee (related to one my kid’s activities)

In both cases, the same thing happens. A discussion is occurring (or this could be a series of discussions) and at some point, I think:

“This entire discussion seems idiotic. What are these people thinking? Can’t they see that what they are discussing does not make sense? That the discussion should be re-framed as this?”

Or something like that. Call me negative (which my wife does). Call me a skeptic (the term I prefer). But I am always looking for inconsistencies (or anything illogical or anything out of place). And, these thoughts I have happen all the time. It’s hard (if not impossible) to turn off my logic machine. At some point, I feel compelled to respond.

Now, as a child, my parents “pounded” into me the need to have good manners. My mom always impressed upon me, “if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all”.

So, when I do say something, I try my best to say it politely and pleasantly (making my best attempt to not offend people).

And, looking back, it is beginning to dawn on me that doing this is very well likely causing me to become “blacklisted” within that group.

I am not necessarily losing status (I don’t think), because I didn’t have status to lose. Rather, I am simply being categorized as being someone who is rude (and I suppose possibly arrogant). I believe they see me as someone who every once in a while makes a good point for the group to think about (that is contrary to what the group is currently thinking). Yet, I am also considered dangerous, a pariah. Someone who goes against the grain.

By the way, I just read the Wikipedia definition for Group Think <click>. This is not a new concept for me (I became familiar with it many years ago). But, I think now for the first time, I actually understand what's going on.

Do you know what? As an Aspie living in an NT world, I am beginning to feel like I live in Stepford <click>. Yikes. No wonder I prefer to be by myself. Being with NTs is too much work.

When is WP going to add a "Like" button?

This is something I read in a review of the book on Amazon: "The neurotypical brain constantly converses in thoughts that underlie the words and are "understood" by the people conversing. The autistic brain does not understand the underlying conversation and tries to take part in what appears to be the topic under discussion. This is seen as taking part in the underlying conversation, and the autie is understood to mean things s/he does not and cannot mean."

This concept eludes me. They're really saying something other than the words coming out their mouths? How do they do that and what are they really saying? I'm not sure if we're talking about something complex being communicated that we're incapable of perceiving or if it's a "lower" communication, like an alpha male expressing his dominance over the pack? Like the words coming out someone's mouth sound friendly but their tone and body language are giving you a warning? Not that I comprehend any of that in real time.

There is a different workaround to Inferring By Association and it is what I do in my own life. (Although I didn't call it Inferring By Association until I read this book.) My workaround is to prevent the inferrence by blocking the association. Instead of just stating my opinion, which allows for a free flow of associations, I turn the opinion back on myself to dissociate it from whatever associations the listener might make. Instead of "This is a dumb show" I might say "Reality shows are not for me, I need lots of plot". In fact I have said just exactly that at work lunch break when Dancing With The Stars came up as a subject of discussion. Saying, "Reality shows are not for me, I need lots of plot" led to a good discussion about the merits of reality shows versus heavily plotted shows like Game of Thrones. Turning the opinion back on myself made it clear that I wasn't talking about dance show viewers (and taking things personally is a common inference) but rather about what I need from a show.

Turning the opinion back on yourself to break the association is a pretty common conversation tactic. Of course there are some people who use that as a passive-aggressive insult. They break the association in one sentence and then re-eastablish it even more firmly in the next sentence. For instance, if I augmented my above example I could turn it into an insult like so: "Reality shows are not for me. I need lots of plot. One of the downsides of high IQ is needing complex plot." That forces the (NT) listener to associate reality shows with low IQ and thus infer I have called them dumb. I don't think this sort of insult can be done by accident so it shouldn't be a danger.

If you take the safe stance of always waiting until somebody else offers an opinion so that you can agree with it, you run the risk of seeming like a Yes-Man, somebody who just reflexively agrees.

If this whole "breaking the association by turning the opinion back on yourself" seems too convoluted to do in real time during a conversation, the simplest thing is just to say you like or dislike something and only expand on that if the conversation goes there. If you say "this is a dumb show" it comes across like a fact instead of an opinion and makes Inferrence by Association very likely. If you say "I don't like this show", Inferrence by Association is still possible (it's the author's example) but less likely and the more likely response is "why not?" which leads to you turning the opinion back on yourself without having to plan it out.

simplified summary: say "I don't like X" instead of "X is (some bad thing)"




This is a workplace dilemma that often comes up in movies because it is an actual dilemma. I solve this dilemma by not offering an opinion to a person of higher status (my boss) unless point blank asked. Then I do give my honest opinion pro or con, but only after being asked.




The simplest and safest thing to do is just not give your opinion to your boss unless asked. That's what I do.


I think this really only counts at work. I don't think it is inherent part of being an Aspie to always be the lowest status. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburg sure aren't. But I do think it is wise to withold your opinion from those higher in rank at work unless asked.


No. Just withold it from your boss and your boss's boss. But a group in general? No reason to withold it. Just be prepared to defend it. Having a divergent opinion is how change happens, but only if you can make a strong case for the merits of your point of view. And I bet you can.*



It is a minefield for sure. There are so many convoluted rules and so many ways to slip up. I know that keeping quiet so as never to say the wrong thing seems like the only possible way to navigate this minefield of NT society. Some people navigate it by instinct. I navigate it with a keen eye to the rules (which is one reason why I think I am BAP). That could come by studying this book like it was a college course. But in my own life I have seen some people navigate it by breaking the rules with great frequency (such as 2 highschool friends I think might be Aspie) but with such obvious goodwill that they just got labeled friendly eccentrics rather than being disliked.

I liked this book so much that it reveals the true pattern of how the social circle runs. And I have started to mute myself up on any critical areas when I take into any gossip conversation.

For example, when a friend is saying that he's sick and having some flu syndromes. He is expecting someone to care about him by recommending some doctors or allow the counterparts to express the prior sick feeling. It's halfly emotional expression and half solution seeking. While I was used to understand that lots of the medicines are hurting the body. I mean doctors in my city, not sure how other country works. I had experiences that doctors only casually provide antibiotics to... cure flu... Yet, I always get dead air when I remind my friend not to trust any doctors. It's like, there is a strong invisible flow that doctors, prices, personal sick experiences should be involved. While statistics and scientific analysis should be banned.

This book, is a guide to lead us to understand this social earth. I don't think it's really helping me to "tackle" the neurological world. I could be able to have deep insight on conversations, but it's like my mind will be stucked in over-analysis. It's very often that hundreds of words that I tried to explain right here could be simply condensed in a few quick dialogues.

It's like, 99% of the time the conversations are buoyant. Only 1% analysis should be involved. It is like a flow of stream, aspies like me has to follow the stream long enough to go the counterside. 1%/99% are only example figures for analogy purpose, there is no scientific support.

That's my view only. I am happy to find someone enjoy this book too. Please share more of different views.

And now we come to the core dilemma. You are between a rock and a hard place

. If you withold your opinion to not be labeled a troublemaker/pariah/that rude guy then you are stressed and probably not effective on the committee, just silent and seething.

But if you speak your opinion, you get that label and the group continues doing what they were doing just with you on the outside of their decision making.

The best possible outcome: the group listens to your opinion and takes it seriously, maybe implementing it.

You have tried stating your opinion politely and non-offensively. Even so, the group dismisses it. It may seem too weird, illogical or "out there" to be considered.

The politeness is fine. But it needs to be in the service of a persuasive argument. You say the discussion doesn't make sense and needs to be re-framed but it must make sense to them or they wouldn't be saying it. So your counter-argument must be worded in a way that will also make sense to them and in fact will sound like a better idea than what they are currently contemplating. I think you will need your wife's help for this one. Tell your counter-argument to her before saying it to the group and she can help you re-word it in a way that will be persuasive to them. You have to make a convincing case to them for why your way is better. Telling them (even politely) that they aren't making sense won't work because all that does is show that you don't understand them. But they understand each other just fine. To break through that you need to state your case in a way that will convince them. Get your wife's help.