Explicitness and Details

Post Reply New Topic

As the title of this post suggests, I, a 24-year-old with autism, have a compulsive need for explicitness. Unlike most neurotypicals, I do not automatically fill in detail gaps when presented with a vague question or instruction. Therefore, I often need someone else to take time out to explain to me, in necessary depth, what constitutes obedience to the instruction, and what constitutes disobedience. As a hypothetical example, if someone else is teaching me a coping tactic through conversation, he or she has an obligation to let me know, explicitly, if or when I am allowed to speak. An example of explicitness in this hypothetical scenario would be to hold up a "control" sign, with "LISTEN; DON'T TALK" or a variant thereof on one side and "YOU MAY NOW TALK" or a variant thereof on the other side. The instructor must hold up the sign with the "DON'T TALK" side facing me when it is NOT my turn to talk, and turn it the other way, so that the the "NOW TALK" side is facing me when it is.

I've been to many badly-run meetings - not everyone is good at knowing when to speak, and some NTs are terrible at it. In more casual situations, I usually try to let the other(s) finish their paragraph before responding, but may interrupt if I feel I have understood what they want to say part way through, or are leaving something essential out. In a classroom, the teacher is usually also the chairperson, and will call on other speakers when they are wanted. Some conversations are a mess of people talking over each other with no one listening well, so I usually leave, in spirit if not in body.

What's wrong with handing out conversation control cards, like the ones I just mentioned? Control is an absolute necessity in conversation. Control is simply forbidding anyone else to speak while one person is speaking. You get your turn to speak when the other person turns the control card, not when he or she finishes speaking. These rules are there for a reason.

Please give me any arguments you have against using explicit controls in conversation. As far as I'm concerned, I absolutely need controls.

A few meetings use a "talking stick" which is passed from one person to the next to indicate who has the floor. Apart from that, your request will seem bizarre and rude. If your comments are a to be a continuation of a conversation, you will understand where they best fit into the narrative. If they are not, you are just demanding a time slot to make a speech, but not to interact. There's really no point in anybody talking if they don't expect to be understood, and little point in listening if the speaker is not good enough to be a recording, nor willing to clarify points. Can you at least distinguish a question, which invites a response, from a statement, which might inspire one, but seldom does?

In a free-for-all conversation, I suspect that the acceptability of an interruption is related to social status, with each affecting the other. If you can make a pertinent point without making someone of higher rank look stupid, that's a good time to break in. It is a lot to keep track of, but confidence helps, so don't worry too much about brief remarks. If you can throw in a joke, it is often the best way to make a point without stirring up resistance. Often, the topic will move on before you get a chance to speak, and you are better off trying to anticipate where it might go next. Do try to stay on topic, and not make long or unrelated remarks that are boring for others.

Conversations should never be free-for-all; they should be structured. That was my only point. I gave an example of how to achieve a structured conversation.