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

Post Reply New Topic

Hello, I'm about halfway through the book and I have some questions about small talk.

If people follow the 'small talk' pattern unconciously, what are thinking/aware of while they do it? Do they think about what is being said, about the person they're talking to, or some other NT thing?

The book says, 'During small talk, the people are trying to place others (find out their identity) without committing to anything themselves.' Does this mean there is a conflict between the particitpants over how much is revealed? Is each person trying to get the other person to tell her something important, and at the same time trying to avoid revealing too much about herself? Or have I interpreted this sentence wrongly?

Maybe you should not dwell so much on yourself and how you are different from so many people but rather spend your time trying to build a relationship with your daughter in the last precious year of her childhood, before it is too late. By the way, having a good relationship with your daughter is not the same thing as forcing yourself to go to committee meetings at her school.

There are some other interpretations to this dialog besides the one you have given, such as your are passive aggressive and expressing hostility toward your daughter. I am assuming you make comments like this quite regularly, and the ultimate cumulative result of this kind of 'communication' is to beat a budding, learning, growing generative person down, and that is sad. I have seen that show, Dance Moms, and it is the kind of thing that would be interesting to a twelve year old girl. The obvious implication of the comment is that dumb people watch dumb shows...duh...anyone could get it, including a twelve year old girl, any so called nt or an aspie:-). I think you knew but were unaware when you made it. Imo unaware people, so called nt's and aspies, including myself when I am unaware, are destroying the world..

Littlebee – Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Though, I think you are reading way too much into this specific interaction with my daughter and making a bunch of assumptions.

Regarding the “obvious implication of the comment”, I am not certain I agree. I was not at all insinuating that my daughter was dumb. She is an honor student and as smart as a whip. And, she knows it.

I suppose, if she was dumb and I made the comment, it would be a different thing altogether. But that is not the case.

Regarding "unaware people are destroying the world", OK.

Hi Rocket..Yes, I get what you're saying, and when I was writing that thought you might think I'm reading too much into it, and maybe I am, but you may be missing seeing the moon I am pointing at:-) It is kind of like turning a picture 'sideways' in ones mind so it is an hour glass instead of two profiles facing each other or vice versa....

So why would such a smart girl be watching such a dumb show??? Think she would get smarter if she did not watch it and instead watched something else? That is questionable. The main point which you seem to have missed is that when she said "you're dumb," this was a code which represented what your comment meant (to her), that you were implying she was dumb and/or you did not feel her as a being. That is the implication of such a comment. What grades she gets in school has nothing to do with it. So saying you were dumb was really kind of saying, "you do not feel me as a person")....

Do you understand that something can represent different things to different people and part of communication is understanding what it means to someone else? This is not necessarily a matter of sheer logic, but may be kind of leaping over the gap and feeling (with) someone..

I suspect she watches the show because she finds it entertaining. She also used to watch Here Comes Honey Boo Boo (another dumb show that is also disturbing, in the way it portrays people). Then again, it's apparently what teenagers watch and talk about these days.



As Janissy indicated, it's Pattern 25: Inferring By Association.

As I said in a previous comment, I now understand why people have social anxiety. You have to really think through every word you say, because someone may interpret your words incorrectly. I totally get that it's my problem (as my communication could cause people to get upset with me). I totally understand that this problem has caused many issues in my past. It also helps explain why I treasure my alone time. As communicating with people is a mental drain.



It is something I am now aware of. But, something I usually only take notice of after the interaction has occurred. It simply too much information to process, in real-time. Which is a problem for me.

(snipped rest of message.) People in general do not have time to think about who is thinking in exactly what way or why, unless they are personally into that. Basically the perceived (by most) norm is the logical (meaning here common sense medium of exchange, the key words being common and also medium). What is the problem with this, if any? You implied somewhere in the rest of the message which I snipped that if people were more educated about aspies, then they would be able to understand why a person is missing the cues, but they already do intuitively and probably almost immediately grasp that the person cannot fit into their medium of exchange because he is missing cues, so, from this persepctive, something is wrong with him. A lot of aspies can be self-centered....including also myself in the past and maybe sometimes now....no excuse for that except wrong ideas about the nature of the universe, which everyone is born having or least will automatically develop, but most people are able to eventually figure things out enough to fit in, which, by the way, is probably advantageous in terms of being able to survive, especially in primitive conditions:-)???.

Hmmm…I've always considered myself quite logical. Many patterns described in “A Field Guide to Earthlings” do not seem logical to me. And maybe that’s why I have had such a hard time understanding some of these patterns (over the course of my life). That…coupled with the fact that I do not process the social stuff fast enough (due to poor executive function).

As a note, “Field Guide” includes Pattern 36: Common Sense. I realize that you are describing something else. In any event, the book states:



I tell you. This book is a treasure chest (for me).

This assumes that missing cues can't be confused with ignoring cues but it can and often is. That is because deliberately ignoring cues is a common passive-aggressive tactic.

There are some non-autism reasons for a person to legitimately miss cues (rather than intentionally ignore them).

1)hard of hearing or deaf

2)so focused on a task as to be oblivious to everything that is not the task

3)mental retardation

4)from a different country and not familiar with local social signals

If these get ruled out for contextual reasons, all that is left is passive aggressive intentionality. The two things on this list that categorize as "something is wrong with him" are hearing difficulties and mental retardation. Hearing difficulties will be ruled out with the contextual observation that the person hears well (particularly obvious if the person is hyper sensitive to sound). That leaves mental retardation which some posters have said is the assumption until they do something that obviously shows cognitive skill.

So for the person who presents as smart, with good hearing, not intently in the middle of something else, and from this country (whatever "this" country may be), that just leaves passive aggresive intentional ignoring of cues as the reason people will default to. If passive aggressive intentional ignoring of cues didn't happen so often, that wouldn't be the case. But it does so it is. (There is a t-shirt slogan that says "I'm not deaf. I'm just ignoring you.) A number of posters have described using "not from this country" assumption for missing cues to their advantage, allowing others to asume that any missed cues can be attributed to culture difference.

If/when more NTs learn more about autism, then 5)on the autism spectrum will be added to the list broadly. But it hasn't yet been and so once people have run through possibilities 1-4 (which happens fast and subconsciously) they either land on one of the possibilities incorrectly (such as mental retardation) or continue on to the assumption that the cue was not missed but was intentionally ignored.

If somebody has built up a lot of good will (social collateral) and is clearly intelligent, then the Absent Minded Eccentric Professor stereotype can apply. That is a variation on 2)so focused on a task as to be oblivious to everything that is not the task. The task is presumed to be mental rather than something that can be seen.

Janissy – So, I can readily see how – in verbal interactions - “ignoring someone” could be quite rude – where another person says something verbally (in language that is clear and unambiguous) and the other person totally disregards the message (ignoring it). This could happen, I imagine, time-to-time in interactions (say between a husband/wife arguing or between a boss and his/her subordinate).

But…What does “ignoring cues” really mean? Does it mean that the other person: a) sees the cue; b) interprets it correctly (understanding its meaning as it was intended to be expressed); and c) disregards the nonverbal message being communicated?

And…what happens in the case of “ignoring cues”, when the other person sees the cue, but has no idea how to interpret it?

As an example, I remember one time when someone winked at me. They were talking about something (I forgot what). It all happened so fast – did I really see that? Was that one eye blinking or both? Did they have something in their eye? What was that they were talking about? Does this mean I shouldn’t believe it? How do I process this information? Um…I guess I won’t say anything and just continue to listen like nothing happened because I am not certain how to interpret this.

Compared to winks, complex facial movements are much more difficult to both see and interpret. Especially when the complex facial movement involves anything other than a smile (corners of mouth up), look of sadness (corners of mouth down) or look of surprise (mouth open).

Yes. That's what it means. My most common personal experience of this (back before I was middle aged) was when I gave off many non-verbal cues that I didn't wish to have a conversation with a particular man but he ignored that and and kept trying to engage me.



What happens is the other person becomes baffled, annoyed, angered or amused depending on your history of interactions with them. How to address that? Maybe just address it bluntly and say something like, "I am no good at picking up non-verbals so please spell everything out for me."

Interestingly, it seems that tech-savvy NT young people are not as adept at reading non-verbals as previous generations. It is a language that takes practice, for NTs too.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 01758.html



So maybe it will matter less and less if future generations just emoticons instead of body language.

Thanks...the thing is I am coming at this from a different perspective....which may be why there appears to be a disconnect. I am approaching from the perspective of transforming ones own brain function so that the mind is,consciously, comprehensive rather than mechanically adjusting to the outside or trying to get the outside to adapt to (ones idea of) oneself. I already got the point you are making before you made it, but still, thanks, and I mean it. I think society, including aspies in general has much more to gain by functioning from the angle I am suggesting. To put it another way, trying to get bus access for those in wheelchairs is a noble cause, but it is not the same as people having compassionate and open hearts toward those who are not like themselves. I think educating the public about autism is a decent cause, but it is not the same as being able to make a new medium based on intelligence and compassion and being able to by ones own attentive behavior incorporate all others into it. I see many people on this forum confusing apples with oranges. It is ultimately about oneself being able to fit in (again, not mechanically and out of fear but from intelligence), not about getting wheelchair ramps put into stores, though that cause is worthy. It seems that some are trying to equate their personal happiness with getting others to put wheelchair ramps or understanding of autism ramps in stores, but it is so small. In my opinion many so-called autistics, thought they/we may have unusual brains to be sure, are functioning the way we are because of personality disorders. There is a big psychological component and it is not all genetic. If the socialization problem is approached from merely a genetic angle, that it like missing a whole big intelligent universe filled with love, joy and compassion..



Imo you are missing something here. Any compassionate attentive intelligent person can see that someone is different and not fitting in and so this intelligent person can easily adjust his behavior to include this other person (or perhaps kindly redirect if cannot not completely include him if it is obvious he cannot fit there, or maybe help him to fit in). Agreed, very many people will not do this, and the real solution is education, but not so much about autism (which would just be like putting a band aid on a major wound) but about compassion.. Now how does one educate others about compassion?---in short by developing a compassionate mind oneself. That is the best way people learn, and then put this together with pure logic, meaning the actual facts, and it does make a powerful pill.



Yes, it is true that social collateral can be built up, but it is more about framing---how one fits into what someone else is doing, and of course one has ones own agenda. It actually is more about doing, so power, and in this respect there is a kind of pecking order. "Normal" people or so-called nt's are not doing all of this analysis during social transactions because they are exchanging good feelings (or at least trying to)---by good, meaning pleasurable. There is a release of oxytocin, the bonding hormone, which is extremely satisfying and pleasurable---the same hormone released by a mother who is nursing her baby or also by both sexes in sexual orgasm, though generally more in women. That is what a lot of this small talk nt's are doing is around---not just a pass time, but sustaining a stable atmosphere so that small but still extremely gratifying amount of this hormone is released.

The approach I see being advocated by some on this thread and many on this forum is not going to lead to that, as it is based on fixing and changing other people to adjust to ones own projected anomalies, and this does not lead to inner gratification in either oneself or in others, but rather creates a schism. This is how I see it and I am in daily generally gratifying interactions with many many nt's (though in the past this was not the story), and I am an extremely unusual brain and mind.....

Littlebee - As the OP, the purpose of this thread is specifically to discuss, understand and ultimately learn the NT patterns of interaction (as discussed in "Field Guide") so that the wheelchair lifts are not required. Just because we are surprised (and sometimes disturbed) by some of these patterns (and there are some later in the book about power and sex that are a bit disturbing) does not mean we are trying to create a schism. It’s us who need to fit in (if we want to function in society). Not the other way around.

Right, When I wrote "fix" I was responding to the message that was talking about educating nt's to see this and that kind of person as autistic, and so be able to make allowances for behavior, a lot of which is basically self-centered, ego centric and immature, and so treat them differently. I do not see that as an ultimate solution. It is laid out very clearly in my previous message which I took a lot of time to write. Did you find what I wrote about oxytocin helpful? I would find that very interesting and helpful if someone wrote that to me. Moreover what I wrote could equally apply to nt's. There is a chance the aspie-nt distinction may be more harmful than helpful. People who are thinking they are different from other people they are with, even if they surely really are, are not so able to be attentive. I find many people including a lot of aspies really quite boring, I suppose, because their minds are not active,but it is joyful to see people flower in real communicationn.

just was treated to a very expensive lunch by my girlfriend from high school and her husband....she has given me about three computers, a flat screen and a car plus I really like her but that makes me like her even more....she is smart and can catch some subtle nuances right away, but basically very boring and to be caught in a no exit world with her would really be like hell,,,,but maybe I am boring to her, too:-)....Also I do not have to interact with many so called nt's because I am an independent contractor, except they are always buying things from me,a and I like them. I like people and sometimes would rather just talk even if I lose the sale or any sale, but that is when I am giving some of my own ideas or when someone is deeply suffering and needs a listener.I take great joy and pleasure from riding the bus with very many people everyday. I am social. I try to help tourists. I am a good listener. This was not always the case. I think in the moment of interaction, though, there is not way to look back on what was read in a book. That is very slow. Empathy is immediate. All the acquired skills will be false. A smile or a question out of compassion or active listening beats it all, and if people are really boring then I try not to hang out with them too much. I find tv very interesting. To me it is very wonderful and magical to see people on there and hear them interacting, and I am definitely an aspie. I did understand what the other person I replied to is talking about, as I have poor facial recognition...there is a one or two second lag, and that is a lot, actually. People think I am snubbing them....their faces fall, when in truth I would never snub anyone I know except under very unique and bizarre circumstances......

Maybe I should try to change my writing style on this thread and see if you can better relate to another style...except in this style which was developed pver many years it is possible to express more subtle nuances....This is probably too long and boring for most people to read, so I expect most people to just ignore me, but my intentions are good....very good.....nio time to check for typos so maybe will edit this later as now I am going to watch some of "The Voice..." I can relate to some of this stuff because I am a musician....

Forgive me if I have offended anyone.....

..sorry--the system malfunctioned so double post....

Hi Rocket. You have made a really important thread, in my opinion. One of the main reasons I came to WP was to discuss this very topic, so of course I responded. I see now that my communication style may have been too complex as I was trying to cover two many points and due to my own theory of mind just assumed people would get it (and I am guessing this kind of thing must be 'covered' in that book somplace:-)..

So I am going to try to simplify my writing style.

Re your question about this book, "Is It Real?" No, I do not think it is real, but rather is one person's way of thinking about a certain subject. I cannot at this time get my hands on this book, but from what I have seen here, since it is apparently quite a complex breakdown of material and elaborate analysis involving the making of all kinds of correlations based on many premises, then this is too general a question to cover this broad a range of material.

Regarding the four patterns you mentioned, all people display these patterns to some degree, as they are facets of brain function, but different people display them to different degrees and in different ways according to many different factors such as genetics, cultural and familial variations, having a personality disorder, the drive to survive, etc.and all of these kind of things can be mixed in together in many different ways, so, in my opinion, to try to hone everything all down to making various distinctions between so called autistics and so called NT's really does not make too much sense and would tend to lead ones thinking even further into a maze rather than toward mental clarity.

But to ask a question is the key to understanding, and you have asked a very good question when you ask if it is real. I assume you mean do the correlations make sense? Probably some of the correlations do make some kind of sense to some degree, as a person, depending upon his aim and bias, can make some kind of sense out of most anything according to the way he slants the material. but to look very clearly and not "through a glass darkly" may require a different kind of approach. Of course I may be wrong in some of these points, but that is what inquiry is about, not just looking into ideas but also learning about oneself, and I have already learned something from participating with you yesterday, so thanks....

littlebee - Thanks for your thoughts. I do agree that this topic is important. I certainly hope more people chime in. I am particularly interested in hearing people’s reaction to some of the “advanced” patterns that are categorized as Patterns of Relationship and Power.

I am particularly interested in understanding in what types of situations these Patterns of Relationship and Power are used. Clearly, they are used extensively in the business world. But, are they also actively used with immediate family, extended family, super close friends, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, work colleagues who are also friends, work colleagues who are not also friends, strangers, etc.?

I am also curious if it’s common for Aspies to use these Patterns of Relationship and Power.