How to encourage people to ask questions?

Post Reply New Topic

I do pretty eccentric things sometimes with people, but they never ask me why I do the things I do. I can't grasp this; I want them to ask questions about it, because I want to open people's minds and to make them understanding, not just toward me, but toward everyone with differences. I'm pretty open about everything except for my nationality, yet people often nose into my nationality, but not anything else that actually explains me deeply as an individual.

I was doing a partner project for school this spring and I brought a worker with me. I did something eccentric and the worker noticed that my partner noticed me doing it, yet my partner did not ask me anything about it. This is really frustrating. One girl who is part of a student organization I was with recently became more comfortable with me and did ask me some questions, but then she kept saying "I hope I'm not asking you too many questions" and I kept saying "no, I don't mind being asked questions like this at all" but she still kept worrying about it.

I want to break past this weird thing that people have and to encourage people to not ask shallow questions about me that only elicit labels and assumptions, but rather ask more in-depth questions about my behaviour that encourage mutual connection and understanding. But how do I do this?

I've found that especially in the USA (I'd guess it's similar in Canada), people are under a lot of pressure to be "normal" and conform to social expectations. If you do something strange or unexpected, it probably makes them very uncomfortable because they don't know the right way to respond to it. The last thing they want is to know more about it - they just want to pretend they didn't see it and avoid having to adjust their perceptions or expectations, and especially to avoid feeling like they have to offer you help if you're in distress or even accommodate you in any way.

To give an extreme example of my point, imagine someone is sitting next to you somewhere twitching and occasionally yelling something incomprehensible. Maybe the person looks like they're in distress, but you have no idea what is going on and the most likely explanation seems to be that they are totally crazy or some kind of junkie. What is your reaction? Do you ask them why they are acting this way, or do you avoid eye contact and hope they leave soon?

I'm not saying this is a "correct" reaction to seeing something unusual, but unfortunately if you want to educate people, you can't wait for them to ask questions. That's not likely to happen in most cases. I've found that when I realize I've done something strange, if I just smile and say "sorry about that" and quickly explain my condition and assure them it's nothing to worry about, they tend to relax and be much more comfortable around me. If you can master the art of looking friendly and harmless for a few seconds at a time, it helps a lot.

Going back to the previous example, imagine the person I described above finishes yelling, then notices you noticing their behavior. They approach you in a friendly manner, smile, and say "sorry about that. I have a neurological condition that makes these things happen sometimes, but it's nothing to worry about. Hope I didn't frighten you!" Most people would feel relieved and comforted by the friendly manner, and now that they have an explanation of the strange behavior, they don't fear it anymore.

Mastering the friendly approach is the tricky part, but I think it's worth trying. It's helped me out a lot in my life. Good luck!

No, I wouldn't ask someone who has not established any sort of relationship with me. However, if I am engaging with a person and they do something off-putting that could potentially have an impact on our relationship, I would ask.

The irony here is, I am actually not aware of people noticing unless it is pointed out BECAUSE of my condition. I cannot pay attention to non-verbal behaviours of the person while trying to carry a conversation with them at the same time, because all of my effort goes into sustaning the verbal part of the conversation. This whole normalcy thing is so stupid. It's like I have to pretty much disclose at the very beginning of every single of my encounters to fulfill my goal of educating people and raising awareness. I don't want to make excuses for myself, either, I just want people to know ME and not the superficial, socially constructed me they always try to get at. Then, I do something weird, it puts them off, they don't say anything about it, but then often just refuse to talk to me again unless I disclose and explain everything. It's also weird to explain every single of my behaviours, because I often have no clue what people actually find offputting. There's always something new that I learn and I don't want to be too aware because then I just become an anxious, overthinking wreck instead of enjoying my interactions with people.

Labels have gotten a very bad connotation which I find to be counterproductive. I find that labels, once applied, can be very useful in the process of understanding individuals; part of which; is that assumptions flow from labels. Aspergers is a good example.

Forty years ago the term aspergers was unknown to me. Had I met someone like my upstairs neighbor, Sally, I would have thought her to so full of contradictions and sometimes so offensive as to be someone to be avoided and not trusted. Her words and actions would have seemed in-congruent, not just within a societal context but her words in-congruent to her actions and her actions in-congruent to other of her actions. Back then, I would have had no context within which to properly understand her.

I would have assumed her to be a troubled, potentially inter-personally dangerous individual such as a manipulator. One of my parents was extremely manipulative (probably Borderline Personality Disorder) and I understood, very well, the import of in-congruence in the context of manipulation. I had learned to steer clear of manipulative folks and my detection 'tool' was observing in-congruities (and it still is - it's a very valuable tool).

Fast-forward to ten years ago when Sally moved in upstairs. She was very friendly and 'seemed nice' except her words and actions were full of in-congruency. But now I have some concepts, replete with terms (labels) that I didn't have 40 years ago; Aspergers and Theory of Mind. The majority of incongruities presented by Sally's words and actions can be reconciled quite neatly if one were to assume that she has poor TOM. Add to that other of her traits such as clumsiness, irrational fears (anxiety), mild naivety and a seeming over-dependance on her mother; then aspergers would explain much about Sally.

Labeling Sally with aspergers is extraordinarily helpful to me in my relationship with her (and a few other folks in my life). Without having the label of aspergers to apply and the assumptions that flow from that label; I would struggle with frustration in my interactions with Sally. Or I might have shut her out years ago when I was first getting to know her because some of her words and actions would have indicated possible narcissism.

I think I know and understand Sally pretty well. See is not narcissistic, she's never manipulative nor is she the dysfunctional mess my description of her may have implied. She is a warm, caring, fun, faithful friend and a long time reliable worker for her employer (daycare - and I'd bet that she is as good with the kids as she is with her friends). She has a boyfriend now for some time and that seems to have eased some of her anxiety and fears a bit; resulting in an even more cheerful Sally.

I do not assume that Sally is the sum of a label. She is not diagnosed aspergers and she might not be aspergers after all. She is largely unaware of what aspergers is. She is a very social person who suffers depression if she spends much time alone (a rather un-aspergers trait). It doesn't really matter; assuming poor TOM on her part helps me relate to her without frustration and harsh judgements.

Psychiatric labels are probably the best labels there are out there, because they are actually representative of the individual. However, people don't actually ask about these kinds of labels a lot, if at all. In this case, poor theory of mind was probably a more useful label than Asperger's per se; from your description, you knew a lot more about her than just "Asperger's" and recognize how she differs from the label, too (I'm actually the same way when it comes to being sociable and becoming depressed without human contact). A lot of my eccentricies, although ultimately linked to Asperger's, would not be the things you would ordinarily think of when you think of Asperger's, which is why I'm often uncomfortable even with this label. Some other, more problematic labels that people typically ask for are "what program are you in" and "what courses are you taking", which may be not very representative of some people's actual interests and likes because sometimes, programs do not accurately encompass more specific interests that some of us have, or we were forced to go into certain programs because they are more likely to get us a job. I don't see the problem with actually asking "what are you interested in" or "what are your passions". Another thing people ask about is nationality, and they never ask what you actually identify with, because one may have been born into one country but then have been socialized into the culture of the country that he/she has immigrated into. When people ask generic questions like this, I have no clue what conclusions they draw. I guess my problem is more with the superficial nature of these social role questions and the probability that the person's identity may be completely misconstrued based on the lack of depth and breadth of questions like these.

And I think these questions are okay in certain circumstances, i.e. if you want to find out whether you're taking the same courses as that person, but I think that there should be deeper exploration of the person happening, as well, to avoid judgements and assumptions in a social situation. Without any sort of follow-up, these questions give completely restricted and ambiguous info.

I can also often "diagnose" a person based on my psychological knowledge, but I'd still often be curious if my guess is correct and would think that conveying information about my judgement might potentially be beneficial to boost the other person's self-awareness. I just wish there was a way to make people aware that I prefer to have entirely open, honest communication with people, because this would make the connection a lot less anxiety-provoking and a lot more enriching and enjoyable. And I tried telling people that, but they still seem to struggle with some kind of fear.

Last edited by MathGirl on 25 May 2013, 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think you are trying too hard to determine the course of your interactions with people.
Some people will see eccentric actions as attention seeking behaviour, as a result it will not be rewarded.

Depends on the type of behaviour. People can usually read intentions pretty well, from my experience.

Sorry, I missed out on my actual response to you post subject which was to relax more around people.

I think with many of those questions, there's always an assumption that asking them would be offensive. It seems like culturally that level of openness is very frowned upon, which can be frustrating. People always seem to make nice and gloss over everything face to face, until they're away from each other. I have always found this dishonest, but it seems to be more acceptable for both parties in the interest of "getting along". It still confounds me just thinking about it, because I don't know which one would be deemed most "correct".

Is it possible that there is a percieved social/cultural rule against this sort of communication?

Yeah. I'm just wondering if there's a way to break it down somehow.

And I don't relax easily, lol.

Sorry, for the life of me; I cannot figure out how to properly use the quote function.

But, as to breaking down how to convey oneself to others without inadvertently bringing misleading or shallow stereotypes aboard: I'm not sure you can, except to depend upon the listeners own level of either; depth of understanding or willingness to hear the label (stereotype) and suspend final judgement over the length of time it takes to get to know you.

I think that as you age and circulate in an older more experienced mix of people, you may find this particular concern of yours to wane. Here I will give you another example:

In trying to formulate this answer; I peeked at your profile and looked at your website and saw your first name. I am familiar with that name from being a member of the Orthodox Church and know it to be used in both Greek and Russian speaking ethnicities.

Upon meeting you I might ask, 'Oh, are you Russian?' To which you could answer and elaborate in any way relevant. In other words, if you would like to dispel a stereotype associated with having a foreign sounding name; there is your opportunity right there.

The last person I've known with your first name was an old Ukrainian woman living in NYC who didn't speak much English and was crazy with fears, superstitions and kleptomania. It's refreshing to meet someone with the same 1st name and the 'hat' MathGirl. I wouldn't assume your cultural identity to be anything like hers even if you were from the Ukraine.

    You are indeed on the Wrong Planet.

a. most people don't like to be interrogated about their behaviors/actions because most people don't know why they do anything.
b. most interrogations about behavior is the precursor to judgment then punishment.
c. most people perceive these interrogations as attacks.
d. most people react with hostility (sometimes physically) to these perceived attacks.
f. most people think you're the same as they for all of the above.

      ques·tion [kwes-chuh n] noun 1. a sentence in an interrogative form

Therefore why, on Earth, would anyone that likes you and/or is already working safely and cooperatively with you suddenly decide to risk themselves and/or your friendship and attack you?

------------------------

    See?

------------------------

    They're not weird, WE are weird. You are weird.

------------------------

    These questions are not shallow to them.

------------------------

    This is how they conceptualize the world, until you make them ASD they cannot meet you.

------------------------

    See previous, and, in-depth is work, and work is hard.

------------------------
g. most people like to talk about themselves more anyway and would probably rather have you ask them questions.
silly, stoopid little questions.
Questions that never have the word "why" in it.

I just realized I do this same thing Verbally/Conceptually that you've been doing. I just did it with my "why on earth" question.
Well at least you're smart enough to get it.
Thanks for the heads-up.

By reminding them that we're not in church, so they are free to ask questions without fear of excommunication or Eternal Damnation.

    You're dealing with half a billion years of survival evolution that has culminated in deception v. self deception v. perception.
    And you're trying to reverse it.

    It's a great dream and one that I share with you, many AS do, but not most of the biomass on this planet.



see Self-Deception on Wikipedia, it's fascinating.



.

Unfortunately there is.

NTs in general, especially ones in our age group, prefer that you get to know them superficially at first before you move to anything deeper, and they expect the same of you. Unfortunately, this means that they will not ask questions that violate this superficial level as in the beginning stages of getting to know someone, they are focused on being as polite as possible. (hence the girl in your student group apologizing for asking too many questions...asking a lot of questions is technically breaking a social rule at this stage and she wanted to make sure this was ok with you). In this earlier stage, people will avoid noticing or pointing out things that may make them seem interrogating or rude. The people you are dealing with are in this earlier stage as they appear to not know you very well and only know you in specific circumstances (i.e. partners in class and school groups).

They may not even think about biases or assumptions because they take the information they get at face value and only seem to use it to assess what they have in common with you. Most people our age do not really think about or analyse their own experiences much, so they don't see the value of being as open as you are...hence them not asking the questions that you'd like them to. They seem to really thrive on relating to each other using as much commonality as possible, hence the superficial questions - they want to get to know you on a very basic level first and simply want to know what you have in common with them. This is a well-rooted NT behavior (one of those ones that everyone seems to know but is never discussed) and so challenging this behaviour may make the NTs you are meeting very uncomfortable...unless they are involved in the disability field in some way or are extremely open-minded. So, this essentially means that demanding a person to be more open/honest with you is not a good idea.

I think that you could always give them a choice by briefly explaining to each person that you have AS (or however you'd like to define it), that you don't mind answering questions, and encourage that they do so. You also need to tell them that you are completely comfortable with this and emphasise that this is what you prefer. If they don't open up even after you state this, it's nothing to do with how well you've self-advocated, but it is just an indication of how open the other person is to communication differences.