Ages at which NTs surge ahead in social skills

Post Reply New Topic

4th grade was when I really started to have problems with socialization. Kids were moving onto small talk and chit chat and I had no interest in that stuff. I just wanted to play like swing on the swings, jump rope, play tetherball, play on the monkey bars but yet I wanted to be normal so I tried to socialize but never could contribute to the conversations. Plus they started to reject me more. Plus kids got in a rush to grow up. I was still a little girl. But I have always been behind socially and emotionally and it was very hard being my chronical age but yet acting immaturely. People just expect you to act your age and you have no idea how you are supposed to be acting so you often hear how old you are acting and being told to stop whining or being told to stop and your feelings being invalidated. Plus being too old to do things because you were too tall for it or too old because you were past the age limit. It's like telling a three year old they can't go play on the playground ever. Also the older you get, the more people expect you to know on your own and more responsibilities are expected.


When I was in 6th grade, no one had a boyfriend or girlfriend but when we moved on Montana, 7th graders had a boyfriend or girlfriend. It was like everyone grew that fast over the summer. Plus kids were having sex by their early teens and I had no desire for sex and I didn't get my first boyfriend until I was 20. I was in high school when I tried to get a boyfriend by telling a boy in my class how cute he is and how we are only 9 months apart so he isn't too old for me and we won't have sex because I am not looking for sex, I only wanted a boyfriend. That sure told everyone I wasn't available. I totally did not get how sex worked until I was 20 because it was more than just having a penis in your vagina. I also didn't like porn so I never watched it.

In elementary school, kids were starting to wear make up around 5th grade. I still don't wear make up and I think 10 is too young for make up and junior high and kids and teens don't need to be wearing that stuff. They also don't need to be dressing up like mini adults and showing off their bodies. They also don't need to be having sex either.

But then the funny thing is when I left high school, I all of a sudden seemed all matured all of a sudden because I had my own car and I was working and I lived on my own. Most 20 year olds are going to college and working on putting their lives together and I was already settled and I was mature about my money than spending it on crap. I took my life seriously, no parties and drinking and I didn't go drinking on my 21st birthday and I have never gotten drunk before nor did drugs. I never did teen pregnancy either. I know not all teens have babies nor do they all do drugs and party. Those were things I often heard about and I know not all teens and young adults go spending money on wants than needs. I have heard of some who worked and saved for college or worked to pay for college while attending. So not all of them blow their money. In high school I was considered to have poor social skills but yet my responsibilities ranged in the adult range for someone who was out of college.

I find this thread so interesting because I've been so worried about my son being left behind, socially, as he grows older. He's only 7 right now, going into 2nd grade. 2nd grade seems so much more mature than 1st grade. Which causes a lot of concern about him fitting in and enjoying himself. He does have an NT twin sister who is very social. Hopefully she can help him acclimate as people/personalities change around him.

Aspie1-It's normal for all adults, whether an Apsie or NT, to be totally different than our colleagues. I always thought that was part of the fun of having a job. I got to know other people who were so different than myself. I enjoyed that though and found their interests and hobbies fascinating. Even the old farts.

From a parent's perspective (and even before I read what you hypothesized), I think there is a surge around 7-8 and 10-11. That was true for both of my kids. It is harder for me to say any older than that because my son is 14, but he is in a specialty high school now and surrounded by computer nerds/science geeks, so most of them have atypical social skills to begin with.

I also notice, however, that my kids also surge. They just don't seem to surge at the same times as their typical peers. Neither of my kids have developed along any steady trajectory in anything.

I lost the ability to maintain friendship kinda in high school ... I mean I knew people and all but the "friendships" never really became anything and if anything non of them are people I even speak to in the recent days.

This is a very interesting post. I wish someone made similar chronology for female development

You know what's ironic? During my junior year of college, it seemed I was the one surging ahead of "computer nerds". I started taking dance lessons and also turned 21 around that time, which made meeting women romantically much easier than ever before. That meant I had some drunk make-outs under my belt, that I wanted to talk about. I also wanted to attend street festivals with beer and try out clubbing for the first time. My computer nerd classmates, by contrast, only wanted to debate the benefits of using pointers vs. references when passing variables in C++. This made getting along with them more difficult than before I got into classic dancing.

Based on RDOS's studies and the scientific papers in bulk on the subject, it appears that individuals who have appreciable amounts of the associated genotypes mature at a far different rate than "NTs", even before factoring in potential sub-groups and the wildly divergent maturation schedule of even closely related individuals. The available sources, other than RDOS, cannot make any determination of the actual average maturity schedule, in large part because there is no reliable objective test to determine who would be included in the calculation. RDOS's test, due to the limitations of not having an objective classification test in general, has the issue that it's self-selecting, and determines it's sample by virtue of determining they are in a sample.



I'd put the language development later, through the social exclusion traits are not uncommon. The different rates and lines of development would suggest that we're more small-group high-trust people, and that to us, the large-group age-segregated environment is utterly foreign, particularly at that age.


Early in-group/out-group activity, and probably execrated by the difference in intelligence at that age. People's tastes, particularly when they don't have a separate history of their own at the age of 8, are shaped by their fairly homogenous surroundings, which means that intelligence, particularly in the verbal and spatial areas, is going to affect cultural choices. To this day I find Adam Sandler's 1990s stuff to be awful and almost unwatchable.

Going by a reference to the "Outsiders" argument, the cultural and in-group activities we'd be interested in aren't available to 8 year olds, for whatever reason. I'd refer the reader to that article for an explanation on that issue.


I'd look to differences in processing, small-group social navigation as opposed to large-group social navigation, in some cases (average) weaker fine motor skills for athletics, and a different level of verbal communication. We are no longer worth anything to them as they form their own in-groups

Also, remember that at this age is usually when the middle school years start in the United States. An idea born of good intentions, to prevent the shocking jump in social development from elementary to high school, but a horrific failure, see generally the reformist education school on this issue. Isolating children, of any processing style, with only their own age-segregated classmates also going through puberty is a recipe for a mess.


Everything I just wrote above is here, combined with the fact that 14 years have very little productive to do in modern society, most military studies indicate that even 17 year olds, on average, are too immature to be a net gain in combat conditions. Yet, historically, in almost every known civilization, 14 was considered near adulthood, Sparta being the big outlier on that one (30 for full citizens to have the right to marry). With a few notable exceptions, US culture has no coming-of-age rituals to have a clear division into at least some form of full adulthood.

In short, 14 year olds, particularly age-segregated ones, are closer to a warband without an adult leader, and with limited cultural and social knowledge.


This topic deserves it's own thread to do it justice.


Particularly in manorial western Europe, the average age for marriage was in the mid 20s, and that was high by the standards of most of the world. Also, Testosterone levels are known to drop around the early to mid 30s, and injuries creep up on people. Most people have either settled into a job track, know they are on a stable path, or can't keep in one career progression and are settling down as a form of social protection. Also, pairings where there are children are going to be completely different in behavior than a one-person household with no children and disposable income. Look at the cost of raising a child these days, particularly for those in the upper middle class who want to transfer social and cultural capital to their children.