Popularity

Post Reply New Topic

I never got the hang of Twitter and haven't used it in over 5 years. But I can relate to the issue of someone's online presence attracting more interactions than they know how to deal with. On Twitter, presumably, there's a number of followers below which it's reasonable for all of them to expect a response or other interaction from you. And a number above which, well obviously you're not going to be able to pay attention to all of them. But I imagine there's a huge grey area in the middle where it's hard to judge, even for neurotypicals.

My main experience of juggling attention is on the February Album Writing Month music web community, which is friendly but a bit full-on. During the challenge you're encouraged to comment on each other's songs. The general expectations seem to be a) seek out and comment on neglected songs and b) if someone leaves you a comment, return the favour. I find it hard to keep track of the social reciprocity. I can't do it automatically, as some people appear to. Nor am I willing and able to play any little social games about who I do and don't choose to respond to.

My solution to b) was to keep a list of the people who've left me comments, with a tally beside their names if they've commented more than once. That way I can plan out where to leave my own comments and get it at least kind of right. Commenting on neglected songs generates a steady trickle of incoming comments which I'd need to keep track of. So, if my brain is feeling particularly fried, I just stop doing this for a while. It's a rather mechanical approach, but the results seem to be acceptable. Not sure how it would scale up to something like a Twitter account with thousands of followers...

We're autistic: ignoring the main point in favour of blowing up an irrelevant detail into a huge acrimonious debate is kind of what we do....

Verbal high range tests: avg 152 to nearest whole number
ADOS-2: Social communication 3 (classical autism level)

You got a great tool.
But clumsy to make use of the tool.

That's how I narrate it. As someone with language comprehension issue.


As far as I'm aware in the arena of political engagement -- it requires 'vision'. It requires a good degree of rhetoric.
Meaning you got to have a 'good reason' to voice it out -- not just as an observer or a passive critic.


But what is your style anyway?

One can be... Too formal, which may seemingly detached from layperson contexts.
Or that most readers do not see the subtleties and contexts in the verbal medium, because the leap of logic is too steep or too complex to be seen as well engaging writing.

A high verbal IQ writing requires a high verbal IQ reader.
And the majority are not high verbal IQ readers nor writers.




The outcomes the same with the exact opposite of someone with high verbal IQ-- outcomes misreaded no different from a word salad writer and reader, just as less engaging.

Except, in such case, no matter how simple or complex -- it consists of pure misreading out of pure miswording from someone with low verbal IQ.
It just brings more confusion... Or humor, but I doubt that's relevant to the politics heavy spaces.

It requires a different type of reading -- many do not have a patience for.
Different from the formal verbal abilities and is closer to theory of mind.


If high verbal IQ writing needs a high verbal IQ reader...
Imagine reading the words of, say, like someone with aphasia. How does one comprehend that low verbal IQ writing?

Then apply that in social media spaces.
Assuming most of the audiences, autistic or not, are at least an average verbal IQ writer and reader.




"Connection" or making them is another layer or area after processing via verbal abilities.
It comes after comprehending the verbal medium, then to decide whether the expressed comment resonates or not.

Admittedly we often find it irresistible to argue the toss, and don't always know when to back off, but I doubt that we have a particular liking for personal attacks.