Social Skills vs. Social Expectations

Post Reply New Topic

People aren't necessarily criticizing other people for their lack of social skills or as you put it bad social skills. What many are picking at is someone who is bullish, unwilling to reason, someone who must have their point validated or agenda pushed through at any cost. When they see an Aspie monologue on a topic they are very negative yet passionate about, and not willing to change the subject or let others speak others are going to find this intimidating, rude, inconsiderate and a whole host of other things.

Moving onto skills (lying and cheating), they aren't just skills but negative traits, actions, deeds, intentions. They are potentially very complex things people do and have in their nature to do. Someone on the spectrum who sides with what an NT feels is right and wrong, shouldn't really be associated with these actions as if they were lying or cheating "to get ahead" in life. Lies and cheating are bad, and yes they might require skill in some cases, but there is an overall consensus of what behavior is good, bad, unacceptable and it is not simply built on ignorance and prejudices but thousands and thousands of years of social interaction. Humans have come a long way. No, there are things that simply make people feel uncomfortable, offended, and confused. It is not a lie or cheating to feel these things the same way NT's do when someone on the spectrum behaves or acts in a certain way. Yes, we should be more understanding but no one should have to "deal with" bad behavior or social skills so the other person doesn't cry about it.

Edit: TL;DR - having "bad" social skills and etiquette due to a condition is not a green light to be a bad person without any recourse whatsoever. Objectivity to bad social etiquette cannot simply be pigeon-holed as being fake, lying, cheating or bullying to protect the offending person again from recourse. It's more complicated than that.

No one seems to expect something socially from me. People say I am socially ret*d and they expect nothing from me; they actually are surprised when I tell them I go to school by bus. Alone.

I think that there is a great social difference between generally acceptable truths and socially unpalatable truths, and in between lie qualities such as tact and diplomacy, which are not species of dishonesty but more indirect and nuanced ways of driving at the truth.

I see nothing wrong with them, even if on occasion they get under my radar and need spelling out explicitly, to my own embarrassment.

Some of the greatest pains-in-the-arse I have ever known have been those people who just say whatever they like, without bothering to consider the sensibilities of others, and when challenged respond with affronted 'innocence': "But I was only being honest!"

Like yer man Blake said:

"A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent."

What is one person's pain-in-the-arse is another person's breath of fresh air. I am forever tired of people who project their sensibilities onto me and then behave as if I owe them some sort of gratitude for being sparing of the feelings I've never had in the first place.

Like, say, I discuss death - one of my special interests. People always automatically assume this is a painful topic and want to feel sorry for me when I don't feel any upset over this at all and find their sympathy confusing and misplaced. Nobody actually pays attention to what I am really like and if they do, they promptly freak out and leave never to be seen from again.

I don't need people to be diplomatic but nobody is ever going to be really honest with anyone. People are just not allowed to grow up being capable of this.

At the school for people on the autistic spectrum, I hear teachers calling boys out for doing things that they claim they shouldn't do around girls when I'm not bothered by their behavior. Gender roles are one social expectation that unnecessary, as people of one gender have lots of variation.

Also, there is one guy at that school that gets called out by saying weird things. Because of that, people often don't let him speak. However, I don't think him saying weird things is truly a problem. What I think is a problem, though, is that he doesn't have good social skills, even compared to other students, and his vague way of speaking makes him hard to understand. Not being weird is just another social expectation that reduces individuality.

And what is to one person a breath of fresh air can be, to another, a chilling draught that makes you want to shut the door firmly to prevent it affecting you. It all depends on your pre-existing state of (social) insulation.



I am always grateful (even if I don't express it) when someone treats me with the tact and sensitivity that they would anyone else. I don't believe that they do so in the expectation of gratitude in most cases, but merely because it is the most cautious and sensitive way to approach an issue, without making any assumptions about the social awareness of the person toward whom they are adjusting their behaviour.



Death is a special interest of mine too! But unless someone has been recently bereaved, I approach it in the same way as I would any other topic. Perhaps if you have recently been bereaved, and other people are aware of the fact, they are simply trying to talk to you in a sensitive manner (by culturally-dominant standards). Their sympathy might be misplaced, but you should (imho) recognise that they are operating within certain cultural expectations and standards of behaviour, and not feel in any way condescended to. I know that in the past, I have had people express sympathy for my loss of a loved one, in (what I perceived as) a rather ingratiating way. I don't however reject such advances because I appreciate that they are the accepted mode of engagement when one has recently lost a significant person. I accept it in the spirit in which it was intended and either brush it off as meaningless etiquette or take it as a token of that person's sincere fellow-feeling toward me.



In that case, how do you reconcile this belief with the fact that some people somehow manage to grow up to be pains-in-the-arse/breaths of fresh air? Plenty of people seem to get along without any tact or sensitivity toward others (and it's curious how many of these are unreasonably over-sensitive to any form of personal criticism directed toward them). Social modulation to assist assimilation of inconvenient truths is a great social lubricator, and should be valued as such.

Doubtless, if everyone operated at the same basic factual and unemotionally-involved level that some AS people do, the world would be a lot simpler. But it would also be a world lacking vital degrees of social shading, nuance, self-awareness and context. And that I think would be a net loss for humanity in general.

Some AS people may not perceive the value of such indirect or discreetly personal interaction, but that doesn't lessen the value of those forms of interaction to society at large IMHO, and nor are they modes which we should neglect to study in the interests of furthering and improving our interaction with the neurotypical majority.

I don't see the two statements as contradictory? As far as I am aware only those severely affected with autism and without any ability to modulate their behaviour are the truly honest ones. The rest of us are the same in that regard only the point I was trying to make is that preferences differ so while people by and large react positively to interactions that are not challenging or fractious, there is no rule that says we all find the same things pleasant. Take this sentence of yours : Social modulation to assist assimilation of inconvenient truths is a great social lubricator, and should be valued as such. - it has a completely different meaning on this forum than out there in the real life. If you don't believe me just check out the Adult section - I find it a breath of fresh air that people can discuss these topics openly and honestly but out there in the real world if anyone tried to have such conversations they would be labelled and made to feel like a freak.

To treat someone with sensitivity is to treat them according to who they are, what they are truly like, and the circumstances they are in. If people are applying some template tactfulness to their interactions with you, that is the exact opposite of sensitivity.



I don't see that people with autism are "unemotionally-involved." I see that they have emotional reactions that are atypical. They may seem to be very matter-of-fact when they are talking about something like death without a "omg death is so horrible" mindset, but then when they start melting down over stuff that no one else cares about, they probably seem overly-emotional. To take into account individual differences such as these would increase social nuance, promote self-awareness, and be more context-sensitive. The society we have now (well, depends on where people live) is the version that is lacking in social nuance, self-awareness, and context.

^^^ This!!

Lately I have had several instances where people would completely invalidate my personal experience by telling me "You have no reason to feel.[whatever]." Like, a person is entitled to have only those feelings that are socially acceptable at any given moment. I have been trying to think back to whether people have always been like this, but I can't remember, I just know that recently it happened a few times with completely random people. Maybe I've never used 'feeling' language before, and I never noticed it because of that.. hmm

How are we supposed to engage with our feelings if we are going to be invalidated every time we do? Like, in relationships counseling, you are told to make it about you, not them, so you'd be advised to say things like "When you do such and such, it makes me feel angry" - the problem with this is that it seems to annoy people even more than if you were to say "Stop doing that you prat".

Does it hurt you to be treated with the same tact and sensitivity that someone would apply to a NT person? Does it in any way disadvantage you?

I would suggest that neither applies.

So what, really, is the problem?

I'm not sure what you are talking about because this comment of yours has no apparent connection to the comment of mine that you've quoted. My comment takes issue with your use of the word "sensitivity." In response, you are asking me about how certain treatment makes me feel. You quoting me implies that your comment is related to mine, but I don't see how they are related.



Since you have no idea how I feel other than what I post, I suggest that you not assume...which is part of the purpose of this entire thread, ironically. People shouldn't make assumptions about how others feel. However, if you read some earlier comments, I in fact said that I was irritated about someone assuming that I was embarrassed in a certain situation, because I did not feel embarrassed in that situation. So, insofar as people treating me with some automatic template of tact and sensitivity (which is actually not sensitivity, as I've explained) causes them to make false assumptions about my emotional state, and to act on those false assumptions, and possibly requires me to expend time and effort explaining that they are wrong and shouldn't assume things (like I'm doing right now, to you!) yes, it does hurt and disadvantage me. At the least, I don't like to be misunderstood.

I wasn't assuming anything. At least I hope not. If you feel I was being presumptuous, please point it out to me.

My point was that by handling you with NT standards of politeness and tact, no-one is putting you at a disadvantage.

I stand by that assertion.

Implicit in that point -- which I shall now make explicit -- is the idea that no-one who wasn't familiar with your particular needs and preferences could reasonably be expected to be aware of your personal standards and expectations of communication.

Therefore NT social standards might reasonably be expected to apply.

No-one's forcing you to 'play along' with some social game, they're simply treating you with a normal social level of (what is perceived as) emotional decency.

How can you know how this disadvantages me without me telling you? This is what I see as an assumption on your part. I described in my previous post how it disadvantages me. The WrongPlanet forums are overflowing with examples of how people are disadvantaged by a social system that is based on norms and assumptions that do not fit them.


That may be true of me to some extent – but it is not true of other people, or is only true to a lesser extent. Therein lies the disadvantage; these social customs fit some people, and not others. They are not one-size-fits-all, they are not generalized. This is why

is untrue.

More specifically, I don't think that I'm asking for strangers to have any sort of detailed knowledge about my personal social preferences. I'm saying that people shouldn't assume things; that seems to me to be of general social benefit. I'm saying that people should be upfront in their communication; clarity benefits everyone. As for those relatively sensitive people who prefer euphemisms and lowered voices, I'm saying that society shouldn't make such a big deal out of the various social faux pas, so that no one needs to feel embarrassed when these errors are pointed out. I think that benefits everyone as well, and eliminates the problems people have with straight-forwardness.


I don't recall having posted anything in this thread about being forced to play along with anything, so I do not see why you are saying this to me.

Well, OK then, piss or get off the pot. How do neurotypical standards, in the example under discussion, disadvantage you?




Again, unless you can actually demonstrate how being treated with NT standards of tact and diplomacy somehow disadvantages you in the specific example we are discussing, I don't think you have reasonable expectations.



Again, how is the average (NT) person reasonably meant to anticipate such differing expectations, and accommodate them, without clear prior instruction?

I don't think that your expectations are reasonable.



If you're not worried about being expected to respond in a socially-contiguous manner to accord with NT expectations, then your demands are even less reasonable than they first appeared.

So: A NT person approaches you with the news that (say) your grandmother has died.

You don't feel the usual (i.e., NT-standard) response to this news.

You don't feel obliged to pretend that you do, and that's OK.

Does that make the NT person who approached you somehow wrong?

I would argue that of course it does not, it is an entirely reasonable and appropriate way to behave.

If you're arguing otherwise, I'd be interested to hear your justification.

I like this. One of the reasons I've worked so hard to improve my social skills is because I know how it feels to be treated like I don't matter or am not a valid part of the interaction, and I don't want to do that to other people. Especially not to the people close to me.

^ I don't have to worry about that because I am naturally very inclusive of everyone, however I do go through life expecting that people will be as strict with their egos as I am with mine.. you can guess the rest