Things YOU Understand (but Don't Understand) About NTs

Post Reply New Topic

Okay - I know that if someone holds something out to me, that they probably want me to take it. However, I either don't notice or I ask "What are you doing?"

Another one is assuming that people know things because I know them. I remember telling my mother to take the "usual route" to my therapist when she'd never been there before. At the time I was on the edge of freaking out because while we were less than 100 feet from the office, she'd taken a different route and I was unable to work out where we were and how to get to where we needed to be.

I know that rhetorical questions are not intended to be answered, but I always answer them.

When I first met with my attorney, he asked me if I had any questions, and I said I couldn't think of any. So he said, "I will answer the most common questions, then. The first question was "how long will this take?" Despite the fact that he told me he was going to answer that question, I answered him as if he were asking me.

Interesting. I have to pay more attention to how I react. Usually, I'll notice but probably address it verbally. And now that I think about it, when I hand something to someone else, I usually say, "here," to clarify.



It's funny, because this is actually one of my cripes with people who I presumed were NT, that they don't elaborate or clarify and assume I'm supposed to be a mind reader, including with things like explaining directions, or explaining situations with other people who I don't know. They'll leave out important details of a driving route, or expect me to know who the hell the uncle they randomly refer to is.

But it's interesting, because you say you do this, and you have autism.



I do this too quite a bit. I find the use of rhetorical questions is often to convey a commonly held and unchallenged idea, the assumption being that everyone knows and agrees upon the answer. Oftentimes, I feel I know the conventional answer, but want to challenge its validity.



I find that a bit strange. What was your thought process when he actually stated, verbally, that he was going to ask and answer the most common questions? Shouldn't it have been self-evident he wasn't asking you a question, but stating questions from a third-party perspective?

The problem IS, initially, you said THAT you did not understand the hows and whys. I don't think you did by your subsequent responses to me. What you did was take a situation THAT i broke down and form your own conclusion in which you stated you did not agree with the person's mindset. Thus, you rejected the ideal based on this.

In addition, when responding to my statements, you totally disregarded the primary way in which Non-Autistics communicate which is non-verbally by NOT having an understanding of IT and ignoring it's relevance.

As defined by Non-Autistics, the problems lie with ToM.



TheSunAlsoRises

I don't usually start freaking out at people and telling them to do things without being clear as to what they need to do. That was a really stressful moment in which directions were the issue. It is not specifically a directions thing, but sort of a "forgetting that other people don't know everything I do" thing. There is an issue I have when people give me a ride somewhere and decide that they don't need to follow the directions because they can just make some guesses, and it upsets me a lot because when they improvise I don't know how to get home from their improvisational "shortcuts." This was similar to that.

This wasn't a circumstance during which I was giving directions, but a circumstance during which I was overwhelmed by events and reacting "in the moment" without access to information I technically should have had, and I wasn't unaware that my mother didn't know the way to the office. I was, after all, talking about situations in which knowing social rules is insufficient, because I am unable to apply them.



My thought process was "I heard a question." Should it really have been self-evident that he wasn't asking me that question? Yes he told me what he was doing and then he did it, and I misunderstood his intention.

Please elaborate on what you feel I didn't understand, and enlighten me. And yes, I rejected the actual mindsets, I don't believe I failed to comprehend them. Or are you saying that if I reject them, then I mustn't be able to comprehend them?

Where did I disregard the non-autistic way of communication? I understand they will often misread the body language of an autistic, because they're used to reading NT non-verbal communication. What I rejected was their steadfast reliance solely on this system. Yes, it may work for most people they encounter, but is there ever a sense on their part of, "hmm, maybe it was just a miscommunication between us"?

In other words, do they have a ToM for the autistic, or do they simply assume that NT non-verbal communication is universal? Isn't there ever a sense of, "gee, this guy's body language made me think he was being rude, or disinterested. But wait, maybe I misread him," or do they never think in these terms? They assume their non-verbal reading is flawless, they don't even question it further?

The reality of the situation IS THAT both Autistics and Non-Autistics may misread each others motives do to the degree of differences in socialization. Society is overwhelmingly Non-Autistic so misreading the behavior of Non-Autistics is a primary concern of the Autists for their survival; the concept isn't just applicable one way.

My opinions of ToM is THAT it is disrupted in the Autist. My opinion IS THAT it is a spectrum ranging from slight to significant differences as compared to Non-Autistics. My opinion IS THAT this developmental trajectory is a culmination of several conditions THAT gives an appearance THAT Autists lack empathy. Again, as defined by ToM, and compared to the Non-Autist.

I don't tow the standard party line where ToM is concerned.

Here is the deal. Non-Autists know their non-verbal skills are not flawless BUT in comparison to the Autist living in a Non-Autist society; they (Scientists and Researchers in particularly) are aware that these intuitive and learned social skills are attenuated(greatly in some cases) in the Autist.

TheSunAlsoRises

While this is an interesting theory, it doesn't actually address my questions.

In you opinion, how adept or diminished IS my ToM?

The one thing I understand/don't understand is socializing for the sake of...well...socializing. As if it is an end unto itself. The "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" form it has taken, baffles me. It's like a huge, crazy merry-go-round of insecurity - a perverted "Golden Rule" sort of thing. When I was a kid, I thought it was a game and that someone would "clue me in" when I got older but it never happened. Of course, I quickly learned that they weren't "kidding" and that it wasn't a "game" and, being still quite young, that realization scared the you-know-what out of me! These people are "in charge"! Of EVERYthing! Yikes!

I didn't have the "label" as a child. I was simply "an odd child" so I taught myself to "lay low" and to observe. No one ever fussed over or worried about me - I guess I'm sort of "autism in the raw". I raised myself. Now that I have my official "defective" stamp, of course, I can see that it was my only option, at the time.

What little understanding I have of "the game", from this perspective, makes me feel like the luckiest person in the world for having had the wherewithal to "lay low" and observe until I was old enough to escape the constant surveillance of the "education" system. Home was no problem, but school...another by-product of such rampant insecurity is that "society" thinks anyone with a strange IQ owes it to "the world" to focus on whatever "normal" people decide is important - which is crazy because what they actually want is a way to continue as they always have, but without the result being the problems their behavior creates. Duh!

Even so, I love interacting with others on "projects", when they're happy and not worrying about what others are doing or thinking. Or just plain not worrying. They worry a LOT!

There are many forms of "socializing" and what I don't understand is how the common form came to be so...well...so common. It's as if the whole planet has adopted it as a sort of "law". Crazy. I just leave them to it and enjoy interaction when it happens. Fortunately, my enjoyment doesn't require it.

Last edited by Cyd on 26 Jun 2012, 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't know.

I think Autists are entering a stage in which they are not only questioning the mindset of Non-Autists; Autistics are rebelling against the status quo.

I'll say this, though, ToM does not automatically make someone wrong in their ideas, opinions, theories or fact finding. It is not an indictment of someones intellectual or overall social capacity.


TheSunAlsoRises

OK, let me repost:

Please elaborate on what you feel I didn't understand, and enlighten me. And yes, I rejected the actual mindsets, I don't believe I failed to comprehend them. Or are you saying that if I reject them, then I mustn't be able to comprehend them?

Where did I disregard the non-autistic way of communication?

Well said. Moreover, it seems as if many ideals are presented and taught in schools, particularly in literature courses where a novel points out the flaws of human behavior, and in history courses where the ugly side of human behavior is showcased in the study of war, slavery, etc.

While the teachers put forth the idea that we must question the social dynamic, it's as if no one is expected to actually do so in real life, including the teachers themselves. It's almost like a rhetorical, "Why do we do these things? Oh well, carry on doing them."

This post.

The 'why' to your question in understanding the mind state of others.

The very definition of ToM dictates THAT they do. Non-verbal cues are argueably the primary mode of communication for Non-Autists. It's is their FIRST language so to speak, as such, further communication(verbal in this case) is un-necessary(in a multitude of social situations) for a message to be conveyed and understood.

IF ninety-nine percent of the population communicates primarily in one acceptable mode, in all likelihood this particular type of communication will be the one typically used.



TheSunAlsoRises

Last edited by TheSunAlsoRises on 26 Jun 2012, 10:20 am, edited 2 times in total.

Ah..."Liberal Arts" - that's a good point. Common "socializing" has the same political, us against them, insecurity v. security theme, doesn't it?

I'm rather a "late-comer" to the idea of "autism" as specific traits, but others I've observed and met, on the spectrum, do NOT seem at all insecure in themselves, outside of the blasted subject of "socializing". What do you think? While NTs seem to avoid their own company, whenever possible, those on the spectrum seem quite comfortable, in theirs. NTs often act if they "need" others to...to what? To feel "secure" in their person? To feel they are "of value"? I'm not sure...interesting.

With regard to "communication", I discovered, very early, that people often attempt to hide how they feel with words and actions. It was especially unsettling as I was clearly expected to understand and participate in this practice. Not a chance! I understand it is a part of "socializing" but it is of NO interest to me.

When the vibe says one thing and the words say something completely different - THAT'S not communication. That's "the game". No one who plays it succeeds at it yet they all seem to think that they're the only one that isn't doing it right. What purpose does this serve other than to create confusion and inflate insecurities? It's as if they think "Yuck! That felt really bad but he was so nice! I must be imagining things." People are taught to ignore it and just accept what people say, no matter what. Even though they KNOW it's happening, because they've been so thoroughly taught to do it, too. That's the part I don't understand. Maybe everyone thinks they're the only one doing it?

Don't NTs understand that how they truly feel is projected at the other person, regardless of what they say? There is no mistaking it, especially when the vibe is particularly "unfriendly" and they're trying to hide it with flowery words and gestures. Just because the other pretends it isn't there, doesn't mean they don't "feel" it. It often makes the other person think, they're crazy - that they're imagining things. How is that communication?

If I question this, I'm told that I'M imagining things and that's so ridiculously ridiculous, what can I do but laugh? Why would I even WANT to interact with an individual who is in such a state? Granted, sometimes it is unavoidable but, as far as I'm concerned, it's a VERY good reason to avoid eye contact which only invites interaction. Quite frankly, I'd rather gouge out my own eyes than interact with someone in such an insecure state. People are quite unpredictable when they are in that state and I am profoundly disinterested in participating in it, with them. But that's probably just me. Did I mention that I'm "odd"? ROFL!! !

edit to add - Finally looked up "ToM" - that's hilarious! I wonder who's rationalizing? Since I'm "defective", it must be me, eh? ROFL!! So, do I "misread" emotions, or have I simply violated the sanctity of the "social" right to pretend it's raining when you're actually p'ing all over somebody...hmmm...well, clearly I'm "defective" so the sanctity remains intact, eh? Another excellent justification for the label of "defective"...ROFL!! BRILLIANT!! What IS the point of playing a "game" you have no chance of winning? If everyone cheats and everyone knows it, including the refs - wouldn't one who isn't interested in cheating, literally, be insane to even want to play such a game?

Cyd writes:

Non-Autistics understand BUT there is an expectation THAT IF you have to, you ignore certain behaviors in order to achieve your goals as well as society's. For example, President Obama is met with this duplicity( of people saying one thing BUT meaning something entirely different based on their behavior) BUT in-order to serve his constituents and move certain policies forward, he can't dwell on these glaring contradictions and let them derail his agenda.


TheSunAlsoRise

Understood. And that's pretty much what society's definition of "socializing" is as all are taught the same - one must pretend interest in one thing in order to acquire another. So, would you consider that "socializing"? "Communicating"? Because that very same "pretending" is the number one "rule" in the socialization people are taught. And, in certain circumstances, it is the ONLY rule.

Do you think such pretending is necessary for "survival"? Because, as one who is quite happy and surviving quite nicely, I have to say that it is not. During my own interactions with NTs who are in a "happy" state, it does not take place and success is all but guaranteed - and in much less time than is usually expected. Intelligence can even be witnessed to "sky-rocket", often beyond my own, which, by society's tests and standards, is "freakish". So, what is it, exactly, that makes the common, deception-based interaction between human beings "normal" or "superior"?