8 ms·

Presumably they're creeped out because they believe your emotional responses are simulated and that your engagement in phatic discourse is inauthentic? But how

• krageon 6y ago
  Being "creeped out" is mostly a function of instinct. It's something you feel in your gut (or wherever instinct lives for you). This means that if you do not have it, it's hard to explain. The questions you are asking sort of miss the point, there's plenty of ways people can explain their instinct but at the end of the day it's not really a conscious process. If you don't have the same instincts as some people have, I suppose it would be natural to end up with the questions you do. What's important to remember is that they don't have the answers either. If you really want an explanation that may or may not be true, in my personal experience I can tell that things are simulated or inauthentic unless (as you say) they're being simulated by an extremely competent actor (in the sense that they are acting). Even with people who act very competently, there are always (at least, I've never met an exception) small indicators over time that feel a little wrong. You can't act 24/7, so the longer people interact with you (if you are acting) the more likely it is they'll see you slip up. This isn't really a problem, as the experience of getting to know someone naturally tends to lead to you seeing them in an entirely different light. The trick is figuring out when to show some authentic drive of yourself and when to present a socially desirable composite. That trick is something you learn by making a lot of mistakes (or if there's some rule to it, I have no idea what it is). If you don't consciously stop acting at some point and people see through it on their own, then it becomes creepy. The ideal is to head that off and figure out together if you are compatible personality types.
• cmehdy 6y ago
  That might be what creeps out people more so than the apparent inauthenticity: the realization that their own behaviour might be in no way different from what they perceive as constructed. This poses questions about self, "soul", and "what is real".
• kstenerud 6y ago
  In my attempts to discover the secret behind perfect social interaction, people I've spoken to have been unable to explain exactly how they do it. It seems reasonable to assume that the brains of social animals are specially tuned to learn social interaction quickly, as such individuals would more quickly form a cohesive group with better survival potential (historically speaking). The question of authenticity, though interesting philosophically speaking, I think can be safely downgraded to simply "how it works in practice". Most people seem to do it out of some sort of instinct, and most people really are telegraphing their true feelings and intentions to varying degrees.
  • scandox 6y ago
    Well unfortunately there are people that can perfectly conceal their true feelings and intentions. Perhaps they are the ones that you need to interview. Though I suppose by definition they won't be very forthcoming.
    • kstenerud 6y ago
      That's actually an interesting topic in itself. It's been observed that many sociopaths and psychopaths don't spend long on one person. I wonder if it's because they eventually give off enough tells that others start to notice...
      • ChuckMcM 6y ago
        That has been my experience with people I know who exhibit sociopathic tendencies. One of the more interesting tells is a projection onto people who can see that they are pretending.
        • selimthegrim 6y ago
          What do you mean? That they call them psychopaths?
          • 6y ago
• tw000001 6y ago
  Normal people are extremely sensitive to deviations from social norms. There's even a word for it, "coolness" and more modern derivatives. Human social interactions are extremely complex, both verbal and otherwise, and people will subconsciously become uncomfortable or disinterested when people deviate too far from patterns. The weird kids get bullied because they are legitimately weird. But pretending to be normal is difficult and tiring and inevitably you say or do enough unusual stuff that you give off weird "vibes". And what we call "bad vibes" are often just people picking up subconsciously on subtle abnormal behaviors. I doubt that 90% of the population has actually considered any of this from an introspective perspective. Asperger's is simultaneously obvious and invisible. And doubly difficult because the rules we are supposed to follow are abstract and unspoken, exactly the kind of ideas with which autism makes people struggle.
  • alexandercrohde 6y ago
    I really like this idea. I agree the average person responds to unusual behavior with the same innate revulsion we fee to a physical deformity (perhaps to a lesser degree). However I think both revulsions do dissipate with time. I think what doesn't dissipate, is the distaste for when somebody doesn't follow important and healthy social codes. For example, there's a stereotype of "nerds" pedantically interrupting everybody to correct minor or irrelevant details ("um actually..."). Now, stereotype aside, this type of behavior is genuinely offputting and counterproductive. To a large extent I think "coolness" is the ability to keep the conversation flowing when a potentially emotional topic gets invoked. The opposite is that person who has a certain trigger-word, where if it ever shows up in passing, derails the whole conversation on a 1-man tirade. In summary, I find a lot of what makes a good conversational isn't following arbitrary norms of the era, but a strong empathy/understanding for the emotional effect of every topic and bouncing between those emotional states with grace.
    • tw000001 6y ago
      >In summary, I find a lot of what makes a good conversational isn't following arbitrary norms of the era, but a strong empathy/understanding for the emotional effect of every topic and bouncing between those emotional states with grace. I think the problem is that norms actually encode this information - it's not just empathy and understanding, it's empathy and understanding that is appropriate as per the zeitgeist. The normal range of responses is entirely defined by local culture and not only is this the kind of implicit, abstract set of ideas that autism can make difficult to learn, but this discussion itself is also a social grey area which is only appropriate with a minority of people; and then only if they're already familiar and comfortable with you. When you lack internal boundaries, it is difficult to navigate those of others when they are not communicated to you explicitly.
• watwut 6y ago
  > Presumably they're creeped out because they believe your emotional responses are simulated and that your engagement in phatic discourse is inauthentic? Why would you assume that? While it is theoretical possibility, there are many more other possibilities in play.
  • scandox 6y ago
    Well that's why I put a question mark on the end. It was my best guess.
    • watwut 6y ago
      I would not expect it to be authenticity and complicated philosophy or self. It may simply be, that communicating with autistic takes much more effort from neurotypical people, is more frustrating. Eventually they stop trying and putting that effort on. Just as communicating with other is tiring for autistic, except neurotypicals have plenty of neurotypicals around to communicate with. I dont really want to guess, knowing nothing about parent. But the issues in communication with different functional autistic people I had observed that broke it down where things related to social interactions. For example, inability to imagine yourself in other peoples situation can make autistic look selfish and unfair (when enforcing rules for example). It also makes it hard to impossible to strike compromise as opponents situation is not taken into account by autistic and is perceived as "illogical". Autistic can be overstepping boundaries without really knowing, making people uncomfortable as they have to defend those boundaries. Can be insulting or controlling without having bad intention, which forces other people to react to it in "defense" or leave for own sanity.
      • loopz 6y ago
        It can also be a superpower, to raise issues across boundaries that most people give up and submit to silently. If you're wrong, the backlash prevents much damage and everyone learns something "new". In many cases, the boundaries are self-sabotage and immaturity, ie. org silos.
• bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  Although I will of course from time to time entertain such thoughts in most cases I will just assume responses are authentic, due to Ockham's razor, and I suppose most people probably assume authenticity as well, thus when they suspect inauthenticity they get creeped out.
• dougmwne 6y ago
  It's sort of like telepathy, seriously. On Star Trek, there was Deanna Troi who was empathic, telepathic with emotions only. I actually think it goes even beyond feeling to thought as well. We are extremely sensitive to the inner mental lives of others and respond both consciously and unconsciously. It takes a sociopath or an extremely practiced actor to fool us. For the vast number of people, we can read their inner mental states as easily and effortlessly as reading a roadsign, even if they don't want to be read and are trying to hide their true feelings or opinions. Children are especially easy to read, which is why they can't hide anything from their parents. And since we can almost all do this, many conversations, especially work conversations exhibit a sort of continuous doublespeak where there's what I say and what I mean and I can't tell you what I mean outright since it would be rude or unprofessional but I know you know what I mean. But when I notice someone on the spectrum, I start speaking explicitly with the understanding that the content of what I say will be much more important then what I'm feeling.
  • bsder 6y ago
    > We are extremely sensitive to the inner mental lives of others and respond both consciously and unconsciously. This is so wrong it's hilarious. Humans are terrible at ascribing meaning to what other people do. It even spawned a saying: "We judge others by what they do; we judge ourselves by what we intend." As such, we, as humans, generally have zero idea what is going on in someone else's brain when they do something unexpected (it is unexpected after all). An individual has to work very hard to "cut others slack" under most conditions. Unfortunately, there are quite a few bad social actors nowadays who attempt to take advantage of that, and there don't seem to be quite as many people who will take those bad actors on.
    • walleeee 6y ago
      I don't think it's really wrong to say most are sensitive to external indications of others' internal experience. Simultaneously, as you point out, we're often pretty bad at inferring intentions from this information. But we have much more than zero idea what's going on, in most cases; the amount we know and our level of certainty could be viewed as a function of cultural context, group cohesion, cooperation/competition under stress, individual differences, power dynamics, social norms, etc. > It even spawned a saying: "We judge others by what they do; we judge ourselves by what we intend." There is much evidence for an effect like this in social psychology, commonly called the fundamental attribution error.
• Spooky23 6y ago
  Not an expert but have friends and subordinates who have had this problem. I also help care for a stroke victim, and the “inauthentic” issue reminds me of the motor planning problems that are brought on by strokes. Sometimes novel situations create lags in response time, confusion or time to think about a response. It’s especially hard with very sarcastic people or people who purposefully being assholes.