The Unwritten rules of the NT world

Post Reply New Topic

^^^^
This

nobody is bad / good , clever / stupid

I think that it is always more interesting to address complaints to the precise person and in the context and try to understand why that person is saying that precise thing at that precise moment. THAT helps understanding.
Throwing a general complaint to general community doesn't help anybody and only propagates anger, to my opinion.

I do think watching TV or movies can help to learn proper behavior, as long as one realizes that it's exaggerated. More realistic types of programs may be better. I have tried in the past to learn behavior from TV, but it hasn't helped me with the subtle things.

I like to just watch people, if I'm removed from the situation. If no one is paying attention to me I can observe and learn from people in real-life situations. It's still difficult, though, because I usually never go anywhere.

My wife would explain the rules to me as best she could for many situations.

In practice, some people are "more equal" than others, which means the rules apply differently to them. In other words, the rules are very fluid and change constantly depending on the circumstances.

Some of the really important factors are trust--you might be trusted because you are a close relative or member of a group. Or not, depending on the family dynamics. Are you an insider or outsider? One of the big lies is that "the customer comes first." In reality you co-workers should come first, unless you intend to look for new co-workers. Gender and age are also big factors, as well as brains and beauty.

Whether they should or shouldn't be is beside the point--you can't argue with unwritten rules.

There are a TON of books and articles on this topic, but they are not written specifically for ASD people. A notable classic is the book How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Once when I brought that book up, someone said it's too advanced for their skill level; that person recommended A Field Guide to Earthlings, if I remember right.

I've tried to distill a lot of the basics into a single blog post, which you can find here, if you're interested. (For the record, I follow those "rules," and it works pretty well for me. Many people do get weird assumptions about me when making a first impression, and sometimes those assumptions are bad, so apparently I have room for improvement, most people come around if they're someone I have to deal with a while.) To clarify, these are tips for getting along with people, including colleagues, family members, or service people; it's not so much tips for making friends or getting someone to have sex with you.

Some notes about the limitations of written social rules:

1. It's a really complicated topic! Imagine you met someone who was physically capable of walking, but for some reason they didn't know how, and they would like you to explain it in words. You could probably give them the basic idea, and they'd be able to stumble around a bit, but you probably couldn't describe the exact way all those muscles, tendons, and bones have to work together in harmony to walk well. Even if you're good at walking, you probably don't even know all that info, unless you're a podiatrist or something.

2. There's some nuance. There are probably some actions which are bad ideas but which could be described with the same words as something on my list of rules. (In fact, I'm expecting one of the folks who don't like the idea of social rules to respond to this post with some wacky strawman argument. ) Though they get some instruction, NTs mainly learn social skills through experimentation and observation. They are unconsciously honing their skills whenever they see the results of their behavior, or observe the results of someone else's behavior. Having autism usually means you can't "read" people as well, which means you don't get that kind of detailed feedback. If you have a problem of black-and-white thinking, that probably makes it way worse.

3. Most NTs only follow most of the rules, not all of them. In most cases, I think following the rules would work out better for them, but they actually don't know all the rules. (Even the rules they do know, they mostly picked up subconsciously, so expect them to be confused if you try to discuss it.) Don't assume certain behavior is the best way to act just because you see an NT do it without anybody calling the police. It's possible everyone quietly dislikes that guy.

4. The nuances can vary between regions. Which rules you can get away with breaking will definitely vary between regions. I've lived in Arizona most of my life, but I've started working at a company whose corporate office is in Minnesota, so I've met a lot of Minnesotans. Oh, gosh, the way they interact is all wrong, compared to what I'm used to! The NTs from Arizona don't like it either; the two groups are always getting in fights.

5. While I think the best way to act is actually similar for pretty much everybody, which rules you can get away with breaking unfortunately differ between groups of people. (By get away with breaking, I mean either people don't think badly of you, or they think badly of you without actually doing anything detrimental to you.) For example, a man can act a little bit overly aggressive and, as long as he doesn't go too far, everyone will think that's swell. But if a woman acts the same way, many people will think she's a huge jerk! And if their opinion affects her in any way, it'll have negative effects. It's unfair, but it's because people are used to men acting that way and it's startling when a woman does it. (I've noticed that even I fall into the trap of having my expectations affected by a person's gender, and I thought I was above that sort of thing! )

6. Some people are jerks and there's nothing you can do that will make them think well of you. Nothing healthy, anyway.

Hopefully that helps.

One of the things I am hoping to find is guidance on how to do things more socially acceptable. This would also mean with other Aspies. It ain't just me, the Aspie, against the NTs. It's me, the Aspie, against the whole world. And the world ain't gonna bend but so much.

Think of it this way: If I am projecting agitation or coming across harsh or insensitive to an NT, just how much more harsh, forceful or insensitive would it come across to another Aspie?

Great post, Cyllya1 !

Yigeren, Good point. Most people are pretty "good" and kind, whether autistic or so called allistic.

Cyllya1, who is this person with wacky strawman arguments you refer to? I don't think it is nice to refer negatively to people who you are not in actual conversation with. If the person hasn't even presented any counterarguments in this thread, why are you mocking him/her in this thread? What on earth is the motif?

If that is important, could you then refer to him/her directly, so that the person will get also an opportunity to defend their opinion and tell his/her side of the story. I just hope that some of the more insecure posters are not now anxiously wondering whether you refer to them.

So my social rule would be: Don't continue the argument you had on one forum (in life) in the other. Don't fight a person through others. People usually like that in the long run.

Last edited by VisInsita on 24 Jan 2016, 2:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

There is no "NT" world. There is only the world, and we've been a part of it for quite some time.

Sometimes, i am wondering if this is true, although widespread idea (if i may...).

I wonder if it is not nearly opposite. My hypothesis is that as our senses, view, hearing, are "over"-sensitive, we would get too much information in presence of others. We would then mentally or physically close our eyes and ears in order to get a manageable amount and level of information. But that would lead us to miss the main stuff that an NT would see.

I had this idea when seeing a 12-year-old child making a meltdown after her mum saying to him from the other room "Don't you come and say hello to our visitor?".

For a NT, nothing to react upon badly. For this autistic child, i think that the tone of the voice of his mother sounded a bit like reproach which (for me) clearly brought his meltdown 15 seconds later.

I am not to having meltdowns but i have this over-sensitivity to things and people witch leads me to quickly be overwhelmed by information, even in presence of one person, no need to speak of a group...

So "having autism usually means you can't "read" people as well" ?
or "having autism means you "read" people too well and it is unmanageable"?

(thanks for your interesting comments)

LaetiBlabla, I feel the same.

Considering your question at the end of your post, I guess it could be both. If you avoid social stimuli as too intense, you will miss ques and don't learn the social trickery. Also it could be hypothesized that if a person sees through the social layer, the trickery might seem unnecessary or unimportant. You see that in neurotypicals too.

I used to be confused about things that would happen on TV and why it would be okay but I know now that when people make movies, they can change the social rules in them because it's a fantasy and all for entertainment. On TV you can get away with holding a gun up to someone's head or hitting them while in real life that would end with a punishment by the law. Sure in The Waterboy you could tackle someone and not get a consequence for it but it was all for comedy.

I find that lot of things that happen on TV is only Hollywood and not realistic and it's rarely like that in the real world. Also I have noticed a pattern with body language and it's only on TV and not accurate in the real world.

I like to use the TV to help me work out social rules and conventions but I always choose factual programmes. One that I really like is the Australian Customs show 'Nothing to Declare'. The officials shown on that show use a lot of assertive approaches to communication which I really like and want to emulate because being assertive relates to thinking about everyone's needs and being truthful and being kind but straight-forward. All of these things fit with my moral code and give me a way to behave. When I was training to teach I learned my classroom management style from an australian teaching approach called 'You know the fair rule'. Again it's assertive which I personally really like.

I don't like to try to learn behaviour from fictional shows because I think what happens in soap operas adn sit-coms is more to do with TV ratings than accuracy. They always seem to have murders or deaths at Christmas - it makes no sense to me so I don't watch that stuff at all.

The other things I've found about unwritten NT rules is that they are contextual. So a rule which works in one place is wrong in another. I find this aspect of it the hardest in terms of managing my communication and behaviour because it complicates every rule with a conditional statement. e.g. If you're in place A with People B and C happens then these are the approproate responses. It is just SO complicated. I'm pretty bright academically but this particualr problem is just so hard to solve for all times and places and people. I think the contextual nature of social interaction is why I perform better in specific environments, e.g. in a Primary (Elementary) School - there are clear rules and clear ways to do things and this stuff is pretty stable all over the world. I can do that really well. But in a pub, it depends on where the pub is, if there is a band playing, what your friends like to do and all sorts of other variables. It's to much - I don't go to pubs these days (except the pubs which are also restaurants).

I say to get what you can wherever you can. But a bit of it has backfired on me in some cases. I always pick up one liners and things that can be diverting from all over the place. The disadvantage to this is that a show is scripted towards a predetermined outcome. Even the 'factual ones'. Of course, now, that's my prejudice towards entertainment in general here in the US. They may be more factual than here. But, being predetermined that brings us to this:

Gotta completely agree with this one. Having to do all those searches, sortings and application of theory on a conscious level, while still trying to pay attention is tearing me down. So much happens so fast and without any real plan at all it seems. And work is getting harder. So many people just toss stuff into the mix, contradictory information (well, for me it is anyways), unfiltered chaos and no way to filter this out anymore. My job used to be a dream in that it was always well thought out and finalized before I came into the picture. Now the computer has made it to where nothing is certain until that very last moment when they have to approve things to move forward. Until then it's noodle this and noodle that and tweak this super tiny area or that tiny thing. I never had client troubles or deadline troubles until I moved to NYC and the computer.

Don't get me wrong, it's not the computer. It's they way people use them to not make decisions or take responsibility.

I just don't get how they can just be so spontaneous and not suffer repercussions.

Maybe it is better to watch people in real situations than in movies. But then you should choose people that you know very good, so that you can understand well the context. But when i know the people good, i am involved, then i become "blind" and overwhelmed with information.

What is missing in real situations, like in a restaurant, nobody explains the objectives of the person, the background, the state of mind, the position of the person in the group.

What i like in films (films of my country with realistic stories), is that the context is explained thoroughly and even exaggerated, so you can't miss the context. The framework is indeed often not realistic and predictable, but the way people behave is supposed to be "normal" and typical of different personalities, context and stakes.

Good actors are "professionals" interpreting a role in all specific context. Before playing, the actors read the scenario, and know which gestures and expressions they should use.

The scriptwriter (as far as realistic stories are concerned) construct a place, people, stakes and make it appear strongly so that the spectator understand it best.

(maybe US film industry produces less "realistic" films than in mine) It is possible.

I also watched other people and copy them but it would also get me into trouble. At age ten I started to just only watch my age group and up and not copy anything little kids do because they had different rules than older age groups. But then again I would get in trouble for even acting like other kids my age so that was frustrating so I figured I was being treated different and discriminated and then in 6th grade I figured it was because of my name and everyone with my name all get picked on. But that was irrational there because I went by a different name in 3rd grade and that didn't make me normal all of a sudden because it didn't change how other kids treated me so I knew changing my nickname again wouldn't get rid of my problem. Plus another girl had decided to go by the same name as me and she didn't get bad luck like me because she was still normal. So what was going on here? I think this is what helped lead to the diagnoses. I was missing social cues and not understanding the social rules so I was watching others to figure out how to act in a situation and because kids know where to draw the line and when to bend the rules, I found that very hard to understand. Also kids like to try and get away with breaking the rules so they will wait when the adult is not around and I didn't understand that is what they were doing. When I would break rules rather it was on purpose or not, it didn't matter who was around because I didn't have that concept. From my personal experience I could break a rule with no adult around and I would still get caught but the other kids would break a rule and not get caught so I would think it was okay to do and then it was always confusing when I would be the only one in trouble and not them so I would say "but they did it" and I would see injustice when all they wanted to do was focus on me and not care what the other kids did. Even my therapist said I wasn't the problem in their school, they were because of the way they handled things and have their system. She even told them I could be their best student for authority than the other kids.

I also would see that anything kids got in trouble for, I knew that behavior was wrong. I learned from their mistakes. I didn't like boredom so sitting in the principals was boring and I never dared to get suspended from school because I knew I would be in trouble at home and I knew what my mom did for punishments and I didn't want that. I never understood school suspensions anyway because like the kid would care if they can't go to school but I realize now it's meant to punish the parents too because then they have to call in sick or deal with them at home during school hours with no adult around and because it's meant to punish the parent, they will punish their child for getting themselves suspended because they are so pissed about it. But it's not a punishment if the parent does nothing about it and if the kid is being bullied in school, they wouldn't care and I bet the bullied victim would rather take the punishment at home than be bullied in school. That is what I probably would have chosen if it were that bad. So therefore school suspensions would be ineffective.