23 ms·

Honestly asking, what's the difference between someone being neurodivergent and just thoughtless / mean / an ass?

• wmf 6y ago
  Whether they can control it?
  • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Then why would someone choose to be an ass - or generally choose to be unlikable?
    • nostrademons 6y ago
      It's usually a matter of priorities. Neurodivergent/autistic people are usually unaware that what they say could cause offense: they lack either the emotional capacity to feel those emotions themselves, or the ability to empathize and predict that other people will feel them. Assholes know, they just care about other things more. They might throw their coworker under the bus for a promotion. Or they'll sexually harass women because 1 out of 10 times, it gets them laid. Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. Or they stop paying rent because there's an eviction moratorium, even though they could, because it saves them money and their landlord has no way to enforce agreements anyway. Or they sell drugs to children because they want money. Or they cut people down because it makes them feel big in the moment.
      • gotostatement 6y ago
        Not to derail the conversation but I find it amusing to put sexual harassment in the same sentence as not paying rent
        • monsieurbanana 6y ago
          And this is why nothing can ever be safely said on internet without putting huge disclaimers everywhere. "/!\ I do not mean to liken sexual harassment to rent default /!\".
          • gotostatement 6y ago
            Yeah I mean, it's not exactly a huge leap of logic based on reading the post. If it's a misunderstanding, that's just one of the perils of written communication, and this gives the author a chance to reply. The societal role of rent/landlords is an active political issue, far from consensus, so it's not just a nitpick to jump in on the implication. Noone is being cancelled
        • nostrademons 6y ago
          I find it amusing that I can't tell whether you mean sexual harassment is dramatically more serious than not paying rent or not paying rent is dramatically more serious than sexual harassment. Both examples - really all of the examples other than "selling drugs to children", which is from Breaking Bad - are taken from real-world conversations with people that basically said "What a jerk!" The person complaining about their non-paying tenant basically accepts sexual harassment as how the world works. The person (people really, it's a composite of a half-dozen or so conversations) complaining about the sexual harassers would likely find nothing wrong with a tenant skipping out on rent. Both are women, though a generation apart.
          • gotostatement 6y ago
            not worth getting into the nitty gritty but I'll just say that I mean sexual harassment is dramatically more serious than not paying rent
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • ethbr0 6y ago
        And I guess part of my question was that what you said (pretty close to my own understanding of the definitions) is predicated on piercing the veil of intent. Versus most of the time, people who we don't know well do things for reasons that are inscrutable to us. And we're left to judge solely on that basis of that information.
        • AnthonyMouse 6y ago
          The answer, then, is to not try to judge people you don't know. If you're not invested in someone enough to understand them, why should you be invested in them enough to try to destroy them?
          • ethbr0 6y ago
            Who said anything about destroy? Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood. And that's a pretty important distinction.
            • AnthonyMouse 6y ago
              > Who said anything about destroy? Some jerk named Twitter is my understanding. > Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood. I think you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. This sorts itself out with any kind of long-term relationship because then you get to know them well enough to tell whether or not they're an ass. But the first time you meet someone, it's prisoner's dilemma. Everybody defaulting to defect because you're afraid the other guy might be doing the same thing is not going to end well. See also superrationality etc.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality
      • sellyme 6y ago
        > Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. This doesn't seem like particularly assholeish behaviour. Caring more about being perceived as right (even when erroneously), sure, but if the person is actually right of course they should care more about that than diplomacy. Surely we have enough examples demonstrating the pitfalls of fostering a culture where the truth can be ignored if you don't like it.
        • joshuamorton 6y ago
          This is entirely contextual. It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Failure to do so (often from a perspective that being right means one need not worry about diplomacy) is assholery. Note that this is also somewhat self fulfilling. If you do end up being wrong, you can not admit that, as it would make your behavior inexcusable, so even when incorrect, you feel the need to fight and bully the people correcting you, in hopes that they go away.
          • sellyme 6y ago
            > It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Oh absolutely, but those are both totally compatible with someone who "care[s] more about being right than being diplomatic". It's if they didn't care about being diplomatic at all that they'd be an asshole. I perceived that specific quote as referring explicitly to situations where the two are mutually exclusive, in which case I believe that being right is by far the better option in most scenarios.
        • nostrademons 6y ago
          These are all examples where one party in the interaction has come away from it saying "What a jerk!" I'm particularly partial to being right on the Internet rather than diplomatic, so I'll cop to being an asshole. But I wanted to make the point that different people have vastly different definitions of "asshole". Some people will recognize themselves in the examples; others will recognize the person they can't stand. Sometimes those people are one and the same.
        • 6y ago
    • jjoonathan 6y ago
      Stallman was defending a friend and, by my reading, logically correct in the narrow point he was making. Anyone can sympathize with those priorities. However, he chose to place them above social realpolitik like "don't touch sufficiently radioactive subjects" and "almost nobody has time to dissect your argument so you'll win or lose the optics game on fuzzy associations alone." To be principled in this matter was to be antisocial. Most of us, myself included, would drop the principles in order to get along with everyone else, but that's not how Stallman rolled.
      • danielheath 6y ago
        I agree, but I'd note that Stallman was head of the FSF in part because he would never drop the principles no matter what the stakes.
    • yakaccount4 6y ago
      I think there are a lot of people out there that enjoy being an ass. You can even be rich by being an ass, like the Fox News anchors.
      • adamrezich 6y ago
        or the CNN anchors
        • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
          CNN is not comparable to Fox News like that.
          • ulucs 6y ago
            Yes, I've never heard of Fox News blackmailing someone because they made fun of them
      • ethbr0 6y ago
        The people you're thinking of are Fox News personalities or opinions. They do have a straight news org that isn't terrible, but they blur the line and fail to disclose when you're watching opinion and when you're watching news.
    • marcus_holmes 6y ago
      Some people roll that way. Their childhood (or genes) gave them a personality that enjoys conflict, or that only feels good about themselves if someone else is feeling bad, or enjoys hurting people. It's most clearly visible in griefers in online games, because the social consequences of griefing are minimal. Some people are just plain nasty. But I don't think that's what's happening here. And I think it's ridiculous that it's been interpreted this way.
    • bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      making oneself likeable to people one doesn't find particularly likeable themselves is a lot of work, the people who are labeled neurotypical are often jerks to the people who are labeled neuroatypical so why not use one's gifts as a neuroatypical person to be unlikable in return. on edit: explanatory, not recommending
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • spurgu 6y ago
    Or even being aware of it?
• chabad360 6y ago
  One is someone with a diagnosed mental health disorder(s), and one is just that: an ass.
• stickyricky 6y ago
  One is a personality trait and the other is an anatomical or physiological deviation from normal human development.
• etrabroline 6y ago
  >thoughtless / mean / an ass This is precisely what people with autism tend to be like because of the difficulty people with autism have empathizing with others and seeing things from other people's points of view.
  • Avshalom 6y ago
    I know a lot of autistic people and they're all scrupulously kind and emotionally intelligent. The idea that autistic people are assholes is an artifact of every other gamer on the internet self diagnosing themselves with aspergers in the 00s and then using that as an excuse to be un-introspectively cruel to each other.
    • SilverRed 6y ago
      Autism is very different for everyone who has it. No one is saying that autistic people are assholes, but that stallman may not see or understand how his comments are taken or why people will get upset when the comment is factually correct.
      • Avshalom 6y ago
        Literally: >>thoughtless / mean / an ass >This is precisely what people with autism tend to be
      • howinteresting 6y ago
        Speaking as an autistic person, that really does not matter. Even though I don't believe in free will, I do believe that a functioning society requires people with power (like RMS, in his capacity as a free software leader) to be held responsible for the harm they cause regardless of how neurodivergent they are. What about all the other people who were excluded from the movement because RMS was an ass? A common human fallacy is to overindex on the contributions of assholes, while ignoring the potential contributions of those who were excluded by their actions.
        • 6y ago
• Sophistifunk 6y ago
  Wether or not you like them.
• rossnordby 6y ago
  The 'neurodivergent' umbrella covers a much wider set of things than just 'degree to which the person is perceived to be a jerk'. The perception of jerkitude is usually a side effect of something else complicated. For example, take the DSM5 criteria for ASD, one type of neurodivergence. Here's just a single factor: Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication. (From https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html) A formal diagnosis of ASD would involve a number of these factors. As you might imagine, if you stack enough things like that on a person, it'll tend to be noticed, even when they're trying to hide it. In the context of being mean, upon being told that they were being a jerk, a person with ASD might think "ah shit, not again" or maybe "wait what, no I wasn't, it doesn't make sense that they'd be offended by that" or something along those lines. The nuances of the behavior and the motivations behind it will tend to be a little different than in a 'neurotypical' perceived as being a jerk.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• spiritplumber 6y ago
  "Does wearing this thing make me look fat?" "A bit. If your goal is to look thinner I'd try that other thing instead." Is this a neurotypical person being a butt, or an autistic person trying to be helpful? Answer: yes.
  • orthoxerox 6y ago
    It could be a neurotypical Dutch being themselves. Societal norms vary from culture to culture, even within what we call the western world.
    • bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      also a Dane I think, frankly it seemed polite.
      • dgellow 6y ago
        I'm Swiss (from a French-speaking canton), that seems polite to me too.
      • ejolto 6y ago
        Also Scandinavian and I agree with you. Also Americans lying about these things are often seen as being fake and thus rude.
        • enriquto 6y ago
          As a southern European, I concur that US-ian fake politeness is quite disturbing.
          • ethbr0 6y ago
            As a southern American, I'd chalk a lot of it up to our multiculturalism. There are different parts within the US, where you'd get different answers to that question, almost always! But I'd say suggestion and (to use the southern term) social grace is one of the most nuanced and culture-heavy forms of communication. In that it assumes a lot of shared culture between you and the other party. As least down here, with > stranger, < intimate partner, you'd get a "No" in all cases, but the words attached to the no would also differ almost 100% of the time in the "No, but..." case. And I imagine most of those cues completely disappear cross-culturally.
• esja 6y ago
  Intent.
  • eyelidlessness 6y ago
    As a neurodivergent person, intent is the most frequent source of conflict for me. Where I mean well but say the wrong thing almost always sits at the bottom of the well of what goes wrong between me and my people I care about. Intent isn’t enough. Listening, caring, and having intuition for what people need is a much larger task than abstract care and empathy.
• skissane 6y ago
  What counts as "neurodivergent"? Just ASD? What about other psychiatric diagnoses? A lot of "non-autistic assholes" may have other diagnosable conditions, for example narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Are NPD or ASPD "neurodiverse" or "neurodivergent"? They are probably partially genetic, just as ASD is probably partially genetic.
  • eyelidlessness 6y ago
    Other commonly classified neurodivergent diagnoses are ADHD and OCD (which along with ASD commonly overlap). They don’t have much overlap with personality disorders (which do have a lot of overlap among that category).
    • skissane 6y ago
      > Other commonly classified neurodivergent diagnoses are ADHD and OCD (which along with ASD commonly overlap) What makes those diagnoses "neurodivergent" and the others not? Why aren't other diagnoses "neurodivergent" too? How exactly do we define "neurodivergent"? (And why is that the right definition to use?) > They don’t have much overlap with personality disorders (which do have a lot of overlap among that category). There is a lot of overlap between the disruptive behaviour disorders (DBDs) – oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD) – and ADHD; so much so that ADHD is sometimes considered a DBD along with ODD and CD. And there is a clear connection between CD in children and adolescents and ASPD in adults – indeed, a child or adolescent with CD can follow one of two trajectories, either their conduct problems resolve with maturity and they become law-abiding pro-social adults, or else the child/adolescent diagnosis of CD evolves into the adult diagnosis of ASPD. So there is definitely a connection between ASPD and ADHD. A child with ADHD (even without comorbid CD) has an increased risk of developing ASPD as an adult – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24284138/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24284138/ Some researchers consider ASPD to be a neurodevelopmental disorder – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29401045/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29401045/ – which is the same category that ASD and ADHD (and sometimes also OCD) are put in. There is also a lot of overlap between ADHD and BPD (Borderline personality disorder) – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739390/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739390/ There's also overlap between ASD and BPD – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5590952/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5590952/
• eyelidlessness 6y ago
  If you’re honestly asking, it’s a rude question as stated. But if you’re sincerely admitting you don’t understand the difference, the difference is this: Many people (including myself) have difficulty with certain social cues and expectations. Many of us can be offputting or come off as overly direct or disrespectful. Where we diverge is when and how we address that fact. Do we (only) lash out and expect the world to accommodate our conclusions, or do we (ever or readily) reflect on that conflict and try to live in some kind of shared world? Obviously what I’m describing is a spectrum, not an absolute. But if you’re trying to understand whether someone on the spectrum is a jerk, your answer is “how much do they use their social faculties to navigate sharing a world?” Which is pretty much the same measure as anyone not on the spectrum.
  • Aloha 6y ago
    Agreed. I've spent a lifetime learning a rulebook by trial and error that everyone else just seems to know. It's absolutely maddening then the rules suddenly change for no discernible reason, often with little warning and grave consequences with no second chances for screwing it up.
    • eyelidlessness 6y ago
      I’m sorry I didn’t see this sooner. Just want to say I’ve felt this, most of my life. I wish I had more to offer than this but: you’re not alone, and I hope knowing that will be as helpful to you as it’s been to me.
      • Aloha 6y ago
        Thank You! This whole post, and another comment I made on this thread was super affirming, its nice to know I'm not alone. It's why what people call 'cancel culture' scares the snot out of me, I'm deathly afraid I'm gonna say or do the wrong thing, and not really have a way to respond to it, and pay some sort of heavy toll. I'm okay with free speech having consequences (its the only way to ensure we can actually have speech mostly free of government regulation). I just wish those consequences were not applied for things deemed ex post facto (often by decades) to be violations of social norms. But there is a certain amount of mental exhaustion from having to filter everything I say outside of some very very narrow circles, lest I say something that could be deemed in the future to be 'problematic'. The larger issue I see, is our current focus on peoples actions in the past is it leaves no room for personal growth or to change views, it if anything hardens people views and perspectives - if someone gets no credit for getting better about something (like use of pronouns, or whatever else), there is no incentive to improve.
• brigandish 6y ago
  By separating intention and action. Everyone can be perceived as thoughtless or mean or an arse by anyone else for any action, but we also know from experience when we've been the "baddy" that we may have had good intentions, even the best. I'm sure you also know of times - I know I do for myself - of times you've knowingly and purposively been an arse. There's the biggest difference.
• greatartiste 6y ago
  There can be a very fine line. A few years ago I worked with someone who was a bullying objectionable arse especially to younger staff. Eventually it all caught up with him and with HR breathing down his neck he managed to acquire a Asperger's diagnosis which was his get out of jail free card. A colleague of mine called it 'medicalising c*ntishness'.
  • bjourne 6y ago
    Asperger's syndrome doesn't exist as a diagnosis anymore because the diagnosis was dropped in DSM-5. When it existed, I can assure you, it was not something you just acquired like a toy in a box of cereals.
• caddemon 6y ago
  I think there's another factor here not mentioned by other commenters - it is possible to be both neurodivergent and an ass, but it can often be a lot easier to discover that a neurodivergent person is an ass. Neurotypical assholes will usually be pretty good at controlling their public image. So even if we suppose that cancel culture somehow has 0 false positives (which I highly doubt), it's likely that many more neurodivergent assholes will be "caught" than neurotypical ones. Which feels functionally very similar to profiling IMO, and practically means we are probably not catching the more "dangerous" assholes. Because it's a lot easier to ignore an asshole view if you're aware of it.
• everdrive 6y ago
  Without being too trite: intent. Sometimes people think I'm being awkward or uncomfortable, but mostly I'm tripping over myself trying (and failing) to find the right things to say. People expect that you can read them, and read the situation in real time. I can't (although usually I can gather how it's all gone wrong once the moment has passed -- a double-edged sword.)
• screye 6y ago
  warning: super anecdotal I have found the difference to be willingness to reflect or to what extent they are trying. A lot of my socially clueless friends (can't speak for if they lie on the spectrum) are delighted when I offer them a new set of rules that were previously invisible, instead of insulting them for not 'getting it'. They love being told what the lines between mean&blunt or curt&concise are. They can work around context well too, as long as it is explicitly laid out to them. Mean people (adults) are usually one of: 1. Neuro-diverse people who don't know they are mean 2. People with insecurities they are trying to work on 3. People with insecurities they refuse to acknowledge #3 is not worth it. #2 can seek help using traditional means. #1 needs some training wheels and personalized instruction to work their way up to socially well adjusted. Think of it as a person with a learning disability.
• WindyLakeReturn 6y ago
  Intent and justification. Intent is the easier one to understand. Neurodivergent often don't act with the same intent that someone being an asshole does. Two people tell you that you shouldn't be eating that cookie. One is intending to be mean an to hurt you. The other cares about you and means the message in the best interest of your health, not realizing it will hurt. With time and some prompting they can be led to understand how the message would be interpreted and realize it is hurt and stop, but it happens much slower and is often too little too late. Justification is the harder to understand or empathize with possibility. Due to the previous issue impacting every area of life, often resulting in a significant decrease in quality of life and a significant increase in emotional pain, some will lower the extent they empathize with others. It is harder to explain because people think of their own times being hurt by others and think how they had the option to just do better than was done to them and rise above, not conceptualizing what qualitative differences occur when a pain goes from a short term event to a life long occurrence. One further problem is that justification is only sometimes deemed appropriate by society. The differences in what are deemed appropriate differ strongly enough I'm hesitant to list examples because many will consider just making the comparison as a very asshole move. I am not at all clear if this consideration is in good faith or not.