Why Do People Refuse To Practice Social Skills?

Post Reply New Topic

There you go again with the misinterpreting and accusing me of doing what you're doing. I didn't say that I was refusing to change my mind, I said you would not be changing it with the way you're going about things. Had you engaged me without all the willful misinterpretation and projecting and had your argument been compelling enough I might have at least considered your stance. Nor did I say that you are stubborn for sticking to your views. I said "You have made it very clear that you are going to stubbornly stick to your own views regardless of anything I say." where the important part you're neglecting is "regardless of anything I say.". This refers back to the fact that you haven't be responding to the things I'm actually saying and instead rely on misinterpretations, word twisting and various fallacies. Simply put, I am not saying that you are stubborn for sticking to your views, I am saying you are stubborn for refusing to even listen to what I'm saying and twisting my words in order to stick to your views. These are two different things.
I didn't ask you to stop standing on your hill either. That would imply that I am asking you to change your position and/or stop having strong convictions about it, which I am not because it's already clear that nobody will be changing their mind here. I asked you to agree to disagree. You can stay on your hill and I will stay on mine, but we acknowledge that we are on different hills and neither of us will be joining the other on their respective hill.

I could make the same argument, and claim that you're stubbornly sticking to your views regardless of anything I say.

I'm not twisting your words, I'm scrutinizing them. Scrutiny is not obfuscation. And I'd stick to my views regardless. You keep inventing new narratives to accuse me of, and while it's creative, it's still untrue.

Agreeing to disagree is a privilege I reserve for subjective opinions - what flavor of icecream is better, what car is cooler looking, who makes the best pizza in town, etc. I will not agree to disagree on matters of fact, or where I have every reason to believe it is true, based on facts. This is part of my conviction, and asking me to act contrary to that is asking me to compromise my conviction.

I think see where part of your misunderstanding is though. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just stating why I disagree. I don't expect you to change your mind. I'm just saying why I won't change mine.

You've asked me to agree to disagree. I've declined. Moving on

A valid point about being a novice / beginner I heard tonight. As a novice, with no previous experience, you don't even know how little you even know. After you learn for a while, you start to realize just how much you didn't know, and still don't know. It's at this point where people may give up, cos finding out how much they don't know, even with everything they've learned, can certainly make someone feel like they aren't learning, and will never learn.

In reality, when you've learned enough that you KNOW how bad you are, that means you have in fact learned. Key point - you've now learned enough to self-assess. However, realistically, most people don't realize this, and rather than realizing it means they've made progress, they see it as "proof" they will never be good at it, cos they've "realized" they're terrible at it.

But, of course you're terrible at it, you're still new. But you've learned enough basics to be able to tell the difference between doing it well and doing it poorly. Which itself can be used as a springboard to further improve, knowing that you now know how to tell if you are even improving or not. Realizing you are in fact bad at something isn't the end of the journey - it's just the beginning. Keep moving forward.

Asking someone to agree to disagree is often merely a polite way of saying your arguments aren't persuasive and I've lost interest in waiting for them to become persuasive.

And everyone who's participated has been forced to practice their social skills whether they realized it or not.

Again: I didn't say that I was refusing to change my mind, I said you would not be changing it with the way you're going about things. Had you engaged me without all the willful misinterpretation and projecting and had your argument been compelling enough I might have at least considered your stance.
A scrutiny is a careful examination while twisting words is to rephrase what's been said in a way that changes the meaning. You have very much been doing the latter. Though, I suppose you might have to do the former in order to do the latter. I'm not "inventing new narratives to accuse you of" either. I'm restating the same things I've been saying basically this whole time. And they're still true, as well as fairly obvious.
Your last three paragraphs seem to contradict one another. Ignoring that you still don't seem to grasp what agreeing to disagree actually means - You say that you decline to agree to disagree yet you also say "I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just stating why I disagree. I don't expect you to change your mind. I'm just saying why I won't change mine." as well as "Moving on" which seems to imply that you wish to end this debate and intend to cease responding. Which sounds like you're agreeing to disagree.


This is very much true.

And I've politely declined.

I can see where further confusion arises from, though. My arguments aren't meant to be persuasive - they are meant to be declarative. I'm not trying to convince - I'm merely stating and observing.

Furthermore, just cos one side feels that way doesn't mean both sides have to agree on it. I'm still quite interested in the topic, including the aspects which are disagreed upon. Even if I no longer address VK directly, I am still going to express my opinions regarding the nature of "natural talent".



Fun fact! Nobody is "forced" to be here, or participate, or even engage with me in particular. Those are choices. You've made them for yourselves. Everyone who has participated has chosen to practice their social skills - whether they realize it or not.

It seems a bit hypocritical to both claim that I'm twisting your words, but also try to manipulate my words so they say what you want them to say.

And you're still just engaging in ad-hominem, claiming that I don't know what this or that means, just cos I won't bend to your will. Your "evidence" that I'm engaging in these suppose acts seems to be little more than your claim that I am. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

However, I still flatly disagree on the matter of "natural talent", as either an excuse, or a reason, to not try, or to give up. To be clear, I am not "moving on" from the topic of skills and talent, or the nature of it's source - I am "moving on" from entertaining your claims regarding my character and intent, since that seems to have become your sole focus, and is of no further interest to me - nor is it on-topic.

Relevant question related to the actual topic - although you claim to dislike arguing, you seem to have developed some skill at it. Have you always been this good at arguing, or did you get better at it over time?

Not in the slightest. You're once again claiming that I am doing what you are. You'll notice the words "seem", "seems" and "sounds like" in my reply prefacing potential meanings, which clearly indicates that I am stating what impression I am being given by these words rather than acting as though or stating definitively that that is what they mean. It leaves room for and encourages clarification. You'll also notice that I've quoted you directly rather than rephrasing what you've said.
And yes, we have moved away from actually discussing natural talent, but this occurred because you were not responding to the things I was actually saying and instead misinterpreted and twisted my words. Your responses began relying on a variety of fallacies while accusing me of doing so. The evidence for which, by the way, is your replies and how, in them, you neglect key words and change the phrasing of my replies in a way that changes the meaning. By addressing these things, the conversation naturally moved away from the subject of natural talent. I half suspect that shifting the focus of the discussion was intentional on your part. However, it could be argued that this argument is still on on topic for the thread itself as the topic of the thread is social skills, particularly, poor social skills.
While I appreciate the flattery, I don't think I'm particularly skilled at debating. After all, it's been three pages now and I've not managed to get anywhere with you. If you must know, I've always been fairly good at writing persuasive essays without the need of creating an outline first, but that's not the same as an actual debate. A persuasive essay is simply the presentation of one side while a debate sees opposing sides actively engaging one another over the issue. At my school debate wasn't even a required class, so I never took it.

Seems like you've ignored all the times I have used the word "seems", including the one right at the beginning of the last quote of mine you quoted. Seems like you've also ignored all the times I did quote you and replied. Seems like quoting me doesn't help you remember to not "rephrase" what I've said. After all, I said "arguing", not "debating".

I too am stating my impressions, and have said as much.

Did the discussion naturally move away? Or was it intentional on my part? Seems you're saying it's both.

Regardless, you're still fabricating ideas like it being intentional on my part, as opposed to maybe you're just not very good at it - which you later even state. You said, direct quote, verbatim, no words changed:

In which case, why are you blaming me for your lack of success, at something you don't even think you're particularly skilled at? It's like saying you're not very good at ping-pong, but then accusing your opponent of cheating if you lose. You said you weren't very good - that doesn't mean your opponent isn't very good, either.

Could you please give some specific examples of these "mundane fundamentals" you are talking about, in the case of social skills?

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 14 Jun 2025, 7:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hmmm, I think this is a bit of an oversimplification.

I agree that it is much easier for autistic people (or, at least, autistic people of a similar ability/disability profile) to learn to get along with each other than to learn to get along with NT's. But some learning is required, even for us to get along with each other.

I've not ignored the times you've used "seems". The context of the use is different. You quote my reply with the "reply with quote" button, yes, but that's not what I mean by quoting directly. What I'm talking about is directly quoting the reply as written when needed as reference, without rephrasing. You don't actually respond to what's written in the reply. You rephrase the words in a way that alters the meaning and base your reply around the rephrasing. A great example is when you quoted "I've seen more that concludes natural talent exists, but as a whole the scientific community is divided." from me and then immediately rephrased it to "^The scientific community is divided, but it also concludes that it exists." which are not the same thing.
You are misinterpreting yet again, in the same manner as I referenced in the first paragraph of this reply, in fact. I said "I half suspect that shifting the focus of the discussion was intentional on your part." which is saying that, given the behavior I've witnessed from you, it seems to me that this might be the case but I cannot say with absolute certainty because I am not a mind reader. It's like a parent saying "A few of the cookies are missing and I half suspect it was my daughter that took them given how she's been eyeing them since they came out of the oven." I also said "By addressing these things, the conversation naturally moved away from the subject of natural talent." which means that the the behavior that I was witnessing from you (misinterpreting, word twisting, paralogism), once addressed by me, opened discussion regarding that behavior and naturally lead to more discussion regarding that behavior and less discussion regarding natural talent as the behavior persisted and became more prominent. That said, regardless of whether or not you purposefully instigated the shift in focus, this is still the natural flow of the conversation as the two are separate matters. A simplified example to help with clarity: Person A and Person B are discussing what happened at a sporting event earlier that day. A recounts how amazing one of the things the competitors did. B then says it was cool but also mentions that it reminded them of a scene from a movie with Actor C that they watched yesterday. A replies that they hadn't seen that movie yet, but they've recently seen this other movie starring C. Whether or not A or B intended to shift the focus of the conversation the flow of the conversation still takes it from the sporting event to movies that C has been in and then may progress to a specific film, other films in the genre, another actor, etc. Eventually, it may even circle back to the sporting event.
And now, on the subject of the statement you actually quoted this time and the question you had asked. Yes, you did say "arguing" and I did say "debating", but this is purely because of the connotation of the words. Debating holds fairly neutral and at least somewhat professional connotations while arguing carries heavily negative connotations, so saying that one "seems to have developed some skill" at the latter comes across as an insult. I was trying to answer your question in good faith that an insult was not intended, but if it was then I apologize. In any case, while I don't think I'm particularly skilled at debating or arguing I don't find you to be either. Just because I think I'm bad at something doesn't mean that I can't recognize when another is good or bad at that thing. As previously mentioned, at least two people here haven't found your arguments very compelling while you yourself said of me "although you claim to dislike arguing, you seem to have developed some skill at it." Putting aside our differing opinions on my debating/arguing skills and the fact that my own low opinion of my debating/arguing skills is subjective, rooted firmly in my distinct lack of self-esteem, so may not be an accurate reflection of what others observe of me - I was not blaming you for my lack of success. I was pointing out that even though we have been going at this for some time now I have not been successful as something to support my opinion that I am not good at debating. It was meant as an example of how bad I am at this.

@VioletKnight

So now it's not the usage of the word "seems", but the context of it? And it's wrong to change words, unless you don't like the connotation of a word? Got it. Seems like we're makin' up rules as we go along...

Also, according to science, if you're not good at something, you do in fact tend to lack the necessary skills to accurately determine how good or bad someone else is. The two go hand-in-hand. Experts often get perceived as novices by actual novices, cos the novice lacks the expertise to know the difference. Sure, someone with no singing ability might be able to accurately determine that a bad singer is bad singer, simply by their voice being unpleasant - but that's based on unpleasantness, not on any actual technical knowledge of the performance.

Just cos you didn't like it doesn't mean it was wrong.

@Mona Pereth
One really simple example of a basic mundane social skill is the ability to properly listen. Not just "being silent while the other person talks" or "waiting till it's my turn to respond", but actually hearing and processing what the person has to say.

Attentiveness while listening - which doesn't mean staring exclusively at them and only them, but rather limiting the number of distractions one is interacting with while listening, when necessary. Thinking more about what's being said, than what you want to say next. Actually staying engaged, rather than drifting off in your head.

Leaving your comfort zone, and getting used to new experiences. Social skill require social situations in order to practice. One must therefore exist in social settings, to then have social interactions. Even if it's just going to a place, being there for a few minutes, then leaving. Get used to being ok with it.

Discipline / consistency. If you plan to practice something, make sure to do it regularly. Make sure you actually keep doing it. Don't do it occasionally for 3 weeks, then stop for a few months, then do it again for a few weeks, then stop for a few months - then be surprised you're not improving. Twice a week, for a half hour, but stick with it. Don't only do it when you "feel like it" - make sure to make it happen.

Fully agreed so far. The above is solidly in the category of what I call "autistic-friendly social skills" -- the kinds of social skills we would need just to get along with other autistic people, even if there were no NT's in the world and hence no pressure to conform to NT cultural norms.


Agreed up to a point, with the caveat that there are some kinds of social settings that many of us will never learn to be comfortable with, due to sensory sensitivities, extreme difficulties with multi-tasking, etc. But hopefully most of us can find at least some kinds of social settings that we can learn to be comfortable with.


Agreed.

I think of "social skills" as being in two distinct categories: (1) what I call autistic-friendly social skills and (2) conformity to (culture-dependent) NT social norms that are intrinsically hard for many autistic people for neurological reasons (e.g. culturally mainstream eye contact rhythms). I was wondering if any of the things you consider "basic" social skills might actually be in the latter category rather than the former.

EDIT: While I agree that genuine listening skills are properly basic, there is also the unfortunate reality that a lot of folks try to teach "listening" in terms of body language. See the following funny video illustrating the pitfalls of that approach: Inside My Autistic Mind: Active Listening by Nathan Selove, Sep 4, 2019:

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 15 Jun 2025, 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

To clarify, I didn't mean that one should get used to EVERY experience, but that they should at least get used to more experiences than they currently are. Less a matter of "get used to being in bars, even if you never want to go to a bar" but rather, "maybe get used to being at the library, since you like books - even if you don't talk to anyone", or at least "get used to actually leaving your comfort zone at all, even if only one tiny step, for one single minute". It can be as simple as "set down the phone, step away from the computer, and just go outside and breathe for 60 seconds", or calling a business and asking their hours, saying thank you, and hanging up. Little things. Simple things. Slightly uncomfortable things.

I agree though, one shouldn't over-do it. One should be deliberate in their intent, and choose to expand their comfort zone in intentional directions, which would be of more practical benefit to them. As well, take small steps. If you want to get used to being around people, start with a Burger King or a small bookstore, not a baseball stadium.