Cognitive empathy and miscommunication

Post Reply New Topic

So I've recently been told by a professional that I most likely have Asperger's syndrome. I haven't been diagnosed yet, but I'm pretty damn sure I have it after researching it. I also have a wonderful relationship my first girlfriend , however, I have noticed that I tend to misunderstand her and it can get very icky very fast. It might be to do with Asperger's syndrome, so I decided to write up a fictional dialogue of how a conversation may go between her and I. I also decided to write up an analysis of why I think the dialogue is problematic so that I can give my reasoning as to why I think my conflicts may have to do with Asperger's syndrome, specifically, a lack of cognitive empathy. If you think my analysis was accurate, please let me know, however, don't feel obliged to read the analysis. I am really curious as to whether others with AS or people who know someone with AS or just someone who knows a lot about AS can relate to this dialogue. Thanks. Here it is:

(1)NT: I'll never hurt you. Aspie: Does that mean you'll stop doing things simply because it hurts me? (2)NT: Yeah, I guess so. Aspie: Oh, so if I smoked cigarettes, you wouldn't stop me because stopping me would hurt me? (3)NT: I mean I will treat you how I would like to be treated. Aspie: I'm confused, so would you encourage me to stop smoking or not? (4)NT: I don't like this example, of course, I would encourage you to stop smoking! (5)NT: But then you would have to temporarily hurt me. (6)NT: This is not what I mean! Aspie: I'm confused, it's not what you meant... you mean you wouldn't have to hurt me? (7)NT: No no no! Aspie: Oh I see, so do you think people never feel hurt when something good happens to them? (8)NT: That's not my point. My point is I would never hurt you. Aspie: I feel like you're jumping between things right now. (9)NT: I feel like YOU are jumping between things!!


Let's analyse this. At (1) The NT says something that the aspie takes literally. The aspie misunderstands the NT. The NT was simply trying to say that they would never be malicious towards the aspie. The aspie misunderstands that to mean they would never make himself uncomfortable regardless of the situation. At (2) the NT misunderstands the aspies understanding of (1). The NT is working off the "Malicious" narrative (I would never be malicious to you!) while the aspie is working off the "Discomfort" narrative (I would never make you feel discomfort!). The NT has no idea how the aspie sees their conversation, so just has to assume that the aspie is working on the same narrative as they are. We can already see that due to a lack of cognitive empathy, the aspie takes what is said very literally and interprets it the same way he would interpret it as if it was written in a book. While it may be appropriate for a person to misunderstand (1) if it was written in a book, an NT would not misunderstand a significant other because they have an idea of who that significant other is and can expect what they would say and what they wouldn't, and so can get the right interpretation much more easily than the aspie. The aspie simply lacks the idea/framework of the other person as they speak to them, and speaks to them as if they were reading from a book. At (3) the NT is a little confused by (2) and so tries to rephrase what they meant because maybe the NT phrased (1) in a non-understandable way. The NT hopes the rephrasing will give a new perspective to the aspie. The aspie is still in the "Discomfort" narrative and is having a hard time understanding why the rephrasing is relevant at all to what was said earlier. To the aspie, this rephrasing seems like a completely different thing altogether. It is almost hopeless for the NT to rephrase what they had said in order to give a new perspective to the aspie. The aspie has already started 'testing' the NT with his little example and is determined to stick with the example because there is no way for the aspie to get an understanding of the NT unless he eliminates interpretations via experimentation. At (6), the NT might not exactly understand what the aspies narrative is but says that "This is not what I mean!" because whatever the narrative is, it must be wrong since the example does not apply to the NT. The aspie thinks the NT is disputing the internal consistency of the example, hence creating a misunderstanding within the discussion about a misunderstanding. At (7) the NT is very frustrated because she wants to escape this example, but whatever she says, the NT believes that she is referring to the internal consistency of the example. The aspie misunderstands the NT once again and still believes that the NT is disputing the internal consistency of the example. At (8) the aspie is convinced they are debating the NT because they are having a back and forth about the example. In reality, the NT is not participating in a discussion about the example at all. So when the NT brings back "I would never hurt you", the aspie thinks that the NT is jumping out of the example discussion and bringing back the discussion about the meaning of (1). At (9), the NT rightly points out that the aspie has jumped out of the discussion when the aspie thought the NT agreed to the applicability of the example (at (6)).

Correction: "At (7) the NT is very frustrated because she wants to escape this example, but whatever she says, the NT believes that she is referring to the conclusions of the example. " should be written as "At (7) the NT is very frustrated because she wants to escape this example, but whatever she says, the aspie believes that she is referring to the conclusions of the example. "

Wow this is like watching my parents have a conversation