Help with Autistic vs Non-Autistic Conversation

Post Reply New Topic

I would appreciate if anyone would share their opinion on the following conversation-snippet between an Autistic person and a Non-Autistic person who are dating. I am withholding my opinion so as not to taint the response of others. Thank you very much in advance for your help.



Non-Autistic Individual
"You never try to apologize. No, instead when I told you how I felt you said I was angry, and cuss a lot. You don't read or understand what I say. You just act like a dick. If I read a text where someone said exactly what I said, I would thought: "Wow I make them feel like s**t and am a total as*hole," but you don't even do that right."


Autistic Individual
"You're right: I don't 'do it right' because it requires recognizing the social queues

1] You, being non-autistic, can SUCCESSFULLY recognize Social Queues.
2] You, being non-autistic, can SUCCESSFULLY take these Social Queues and respond to them using the appropriate Social Responses

I, being Autistic, cannot easily do these things"


Non-Autistic Individual
"No one else who is autistic I know uses it as an excuse. That's like an alcoholic saying they only beat you cause they're drunk as they continue to drink and not stop when their partner tell them to. They just say why are you dating me then if you don't want to get beat."

To me it seems like the autistic person may not be trying to meet them half way. There can be communication issues with an autistic and neurotypical person, but if both people can try and meet the other half way that can help.

I don't think you need to successfully recognize all social cues 100% of the time, to recognize if your partner is upset. If they are upset at something you did...it doesn't matter if you meant it in a way to cause that, you should still apologize.

Me and my boyfriend do not text argue, but we've certainly had conflicts. For sure some of it has been from me acting like kind of a jerk without meaning to and then refusing to just apologize and instead trying to argue about how I didn't mean it that way so he's wrong for being upset. I have certainly improved that quite a bit, just had to sort of engrain it into my skull that its not the intent that matters its what you do that matters.

Certainly easier just to say, 'I'm sorry I was acting like a jerk'.

In my opinion it is not really fair to just say 'well I can't read social cues, so its ok if I'm a jerk'. Everyone makes mistakes but it helps if you can own up to it without making excuses.

How did you broach the subject? How you expressed the way they make you feel can get their hackles up and make them go on the defensive.

Have you googled "How to communicate without blame"

It's difficult to evaluate this situation without context.

The autistic one sounds like a doormat to me. Maybe they weren't in the wrong at all.

It seems to me an example of two different communication styles. One that is direct and straightforward, one that is requiring theory of mind as mentioned in other posts.

Neither is right or wrong, but it is difficult for the two styles to have a productive exchange.

If the situation is also emotionally charged as I assume it is from what is written, then that makes it impossible. It is just a reactive exchange then.

For these two people to understand each other they need to talk when not emotional and be willing to try to understand the others point of view before offering their own.

Idk - that’s just my take on it.

I agree with the above about sitting down to talk when both parties are calm and not emotionally charged.

But I will add to prepare for that calm talk, each person should figure out they truly want from the other person.

One person trying to control another is never ever going to end happily.

If each person knows the core of what the other person wants, they may be able to come up with a solution this is satisfying for both parties.

I find the orange analogy helpful when thinking of compatible solutions:

A baker and juice maker have one orange. Each wants it for a different reason (one for the juice, the other the rind for baking). They could have simply split it in half (fair) but in doing so the baker has no need for the juice in his half and alternately the juice maker has no use for the rind in his half. Had they collaboratively brainstormed, they could have doubled their take by having the baker take the whole rind, the juice maker, taking the juice.

Basically the concept is to find out what both people want at their core and it's possible that both can "get their own way" if they both know what the other truly wants. (Rather than having a "compromise" where both people feel "cheated" and bitter about it.

SARK wrote a book around this concept called "Wild Succulent Love" that I highly recommend at least skimming.