4 ms·

OP I know you have put effort into organizing and collating this content but I need to be frank with you. This guy is a crackpot passing off his personal specul

OP I know you have put effort into organizing and collating this content but I need to be frank with you. This guy is a crackpot passing off his personal speculation and extrapolation as fact and the content here is on the same level as autism mommy blogs. The content perpetuates many stereotypes and was clearly not written with any level of empathy for autistic people. A better model for autistic people to understand their interpersonal problems is Milton's "double empathy problem." You can read more here: https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR2.25042020.58 https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR2.25042020.58

fallingknife 5y ago
I don't see how this article is a better model, or even how it contradicts anything in the OP. You have just stated this without evidence, or even an argument.
selfhoster11 5y ago
You may think that, but these notes basically explain everything I've been missing for years from my own "Unwritten Handbook of Social Interactions".
- CipherThrowaway 5y ago
  IMO this is what makes it dangerous. Content like this gains currency by providing simplistic but "useful" models for common situations. But it packages them up with a worldview or ontology that isn't so great.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    So it's better to know none of this (even if partly incorrect) and struggle with social interactions for years? No, thanks.
    - drewcoo 5y ago
      Or there's that ASHA link the parent dropped. The road not taken in this dichotomy.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    Disagree strongly. Had I seen something like this when I was younger, entire categories of social interaction would have made far more sense.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    Astrology and phrenology are similar, in that they provide models for interfacing with the world. They're great where the Venn diagrams overlap with reality, the problems arise where they diverge.
js8 5y ago
Likewise the other commenter, I really do find the list enlightening. Do you have a specific criticism of the things in the list? (I am not an aspie myself, but I have a coworker, who is most likely an aspie, as I suspected for several years, and many of the observations from the list do seem to be spot on. And he just threw a tantrum yesterday, because they closed our office again due to COVID, and he really doesn't like working from home, unlike most people. The "parallel play" explanation does really make lot of sense about why he feels that way.)
- CipherThrowaway 5y ago
  The issue is broader than one or two specific criticisms. It's the attitude and worldview behind the text is the problem. The author leans heavily into stereotypes and treats autistic people as a separate species with uniform deficiencies rather than individual people. This comment does a good job of explaining it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29359903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29359903 Re: your coworker. Diagnosing someone with autism and trying to fit them into a stereotype you have in your head is not a real understanding of anything. Autistic people have complex individual preferences just like non-autistic people. The best way to understand people is to approach them as individuals rather than reaching for cheap generalizations.
  - js8 5y ago
    I don't really understand your objection. It seems to me that you're really objecting to either Asperger's or autism as a category, I don't understand how you can define it without some form of generalization, just by looking at individuals. I also don't think the author treats these thinking patterns as deficiencies; in fact in the original link, he also notes where they give a definitive advantages. Regarding the other comment, I always thought that Asperger's was a certain subset of the autism spectrum. Maybe it is not useful as a category, but maybe it is, I am not sure. But I don't really care that much how we categorize things; the reason why I find the list useful is that lot of the described behaviors in it (1) I see in my coworker (and partly also myself) and (2) have a common explanation. Two other points. First, I also don't think OP claims that people on the spectrum lack empathy, but we would have to be more specific, there are different types of empathy. Second, the author of OP is by his own admission also on the spectrum, so I don't see how his experience is in any way inferior to the experience of the other people on the spectrum, which is being suggested as a literature here. I don't think this kind of generalization is stereotyping; if I can correctly generalize and predict the way you think out of the myriad of your individual preferences and behaviors, it is useful for you as an individual. Stereotyping is something else, it's attributing traits to others based on some classification of them, rather than their own behavior. Specifically, regarding my coworker, I don't attribute these thinking patterns to him based on whether he is on the spectrum (I don't know, and I don't care), that would be stereotyping, but rather I observe a lot of the patterns in him, and therefore I think that he is on the spectrum. But maybe, because of everybody on the spectrum has a different experience, it is not useful to think about it that way. That however doesn't contradict that the thinking patterns described in the OP share a certain way of looking at the world, and as such might be useful, regardless how we call it. In particular, I can easily see my coworker getting fired (or contributing to it) for what he did yesterday (it was pretty scary, TBH), and I don't want that (luckily, I was the only witness). That's what could easily happen if we just naively assume him being neurotypical, that is, without looking at his individuality. And that's where I disagree with you that generalization like OP did is always harmful. In this case, general understanding of his thinking patterns by his coworkers might actually help him and others to avoid these problems (the feedback loop of negativity) in the future. In other words, you could use the OP's list correctly or incorrectly. Correct would be to look what behaviors are in a particular individual, and use the common explanation as a possible guide. Incorrect would be to assume that since you see some of them in an individual, they will also have other traits from that list. It seems to me you're really objecting to the incorrect usage, which is a logical error, but it doesn't really invalidate the explanation that is behind (at least some of) the items in the list. Addendum: I find meta-amusing that you write: "The author leans heavily into stereotypes and treats autistic people as a separate species with uniform deficiencies rather than individual people." Isn't that something you would exactly expect from somebody thinking like a person with the traits in the list, who is trying to "logically" (and perhaps in a bit of a black/white fashion) understand the world, without much regard about social mores?
FeepingCreature 5y ago
Which parts in specific would you say are wrong?
m_fayer 5y ago
There's plenty of autism in my family, I've read plenty on it, have plenty of personal experience, and plenty of empathy for autistic people. That said, most of this list hits home, and not just in a surface-way.
pfooti 5y ago
As an autistic person myself, but by no means an expert, I can say a few things. Adding here because there are at least two replies to parent that are the same "well, it seems like a useful list" at time of reply composition. First: Asperger's syndrome is not actually a recognized diagnosis anymore. It's all just autism and autism spectrum disorder. That's in part because we've recognized that it is all part of the same spectrum, and probably at least in part because Asperger was a Nazi. More about both points here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1 Second, while some of the notes in the gist align with my own personal, lived experience, the vibe of lacking empathy absolutely does not. The Leader article cited in the parent comment aligns better with my own experience at least. Third, that list is absolutely just a random box of facile observations. Note a particular thing about one particular autistic person, and try to coerce it into aligning with a mental model that you think must be true of all autistic people, with no particular actual supporting evidence. If you're interested in what it is like to be autistic in an informal way, I recommend trying to get your hands on a copy of "Sensory: Life on the Spectrum" https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schnumn/sensory-life-on-the-spectrum https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schnumn/sensory-life-on... as it is a good, crowd sourced book about all the different ways autism works. If you want a deeper, more scientific analysis of autism, there's plenty of peer reviewed literature out there. But the linked gist in OP is neither (a) peer reviewed literature nor (b) reflective of autistic experience in general at least. Finally, while some folks self-identity as "aspie", I would find it _extremely_ offensive if anyone used that word to refer to me or anyone else without express permission. Just say "autistic person".
- stared 5y ago
  > Asperger's syndrome is not actually a recognized diagnosis anymore True, but it is a recent change. At the time of writing (2014), it was a common term; it still has a Wikipedia page. Just because it uses one word or another, it does not make an article valid or invalid. (I am happy to redefine Asperger/HFA as Xvvbhj for the sake of a discussion.) I fully agree that there is no meaningful difference between Asperger Syndrome and High Functioning Autism. > Asperger was a Nazi Cancel culture at its best. Von Braun was a Nazi. Haber was a Nazi-sympathizer (putting himself in a difficult spot, since he was Jewish) and a horrible person in general. And? > absolutely just a random box of facile observations. Well, not. While most people don't hit all checkboxes, these points are very far from random. Happy to bet $100 that there is a statistical difference between autistic and neurotypical. > "Sensory: Life on the Spectrum" I don't know this one. > Finally, while some folks self-identity as "aspie", I would find it _extremely_ offensive if anyone used that word to refer to me or anyone else without express permission. I find this bizarre. And at least to me (I am autistic), very antithetical to autism. Things are true or not REGARDLESS who says them. I use the term "Aspie" and am equally OK with others referring to me that way.
stared 5y ago
I disagree. As someone on the autism spectrum and who read A LOT about high-functioning autism (including recent research papers, books, commentaries, discussions in autism communities), I still found a lot of helpful material in this article. Moreover, thanks to that, it helped me a lot with one of my relationships (with a geeky but non-autistic person). > clearly not written with any level of empathy for autistic people I find this statement bizarre. And yes, there are tons of materials without empathy towards autistic people. This one isn't.

fallingknife 5y ago

I don't see how this article is a better model, or even how it contradicts anything in the OP. You have just stated this without evidence, or even an argument.

selfhoster11 5y ago

You may think that, but these notes basically explain everything I've been missing for years from my own "Unwritten Handbook of Social Interactions".

CipherThrowaway 5y ago
IMO this is what makes it dangerous. Content like this gains currency by providing simplistic but "useful" models for common situations. But it packages them up with a worldview or ontology that isn't so great.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  So it's better to know none of this (even if partly incorrect) and struggle with social interactions for years? No, thanks.
  - drewcoo 5y ago
    Or there's that ASHA link the parent dropped. The road not taken in this dichotomy.
- dekhn 5y ago
  Disagree strongly. Had I seen something like this when I was younger, entire categories of social interaction would have made far more sense.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Astrology and phrenology are similar, in that they provide models for interfacing with the world. They're great where the Venn diagrams overlap with reality, the problems arise where they diverge.

js8 5y ago

Likewise the other commenter, I really do find the list enlightening. Do you have a specific criticism of the things in the list? (I am not an aspie myself, but I have a coworker, who is most likely an aspie, as I suspected for several years, and many of the observations from the list do seem to be spot on. And he just threw a tantrum yesterday, because they closed our office again due to COVID, and he really doesn't like working from home, unlike most people. The "parallel play" explanation does really make lot of sense about why he feels that way.)

CipherThrowaway 5y ago
The issue is broader than one or two specific criticisms. It's the attitude and worldview behind the text is the problem. The author leans heavily into stereotypes and treats autistic people as a separate species with uniform deficiencies rather than individual people. This comment does a good job of explaining it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29359903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29359903 Re: your coworker. Diagnosing someone with autism and trying to fit them into a stereotype you have in your head is not a real understanding of anything. Autistic people have complex individual preferences just like non-autistic people. The best way to understand people is to approach them as individuals rather than reaching for cheap generalizations.
- js8 5y ago
  I don't really understand your objection. It seems to me that you're really objecting to either Asperger's or autism as a category, I don't understand how you can define it without some form of generalization, just by looking at individuals. I also don't think the author treats these thinking patterns as deficiencies; in fact in the original link, he also notes where they give a definitive advantages. Regarding the other comment, I always thought that Asperger's was a certain subset of the autism spectrum. Maybe it is not useful as a category, but maybe it is, I am not sure. But I don't really care that much how we categorize things; the reason why I find the list useful is that lot of the described behaviors in it (1) I see in my coworker (and partly also myself) and (2) have a common explanation. Two other points. First, I also don't think OP claims that people on the spectrum lack empathy, but we would have to be more specific, there are different types of empathy. Second, the author of OP is by his own admission also on the spectrum, so I don't see how his experience is in any way inferior to the experience of the other people on the spectrum, which is being suggested as a literature here. I don't think this kind of generalization is stereotyping; if I can correctly generalize and predict the way you think out of the myriad of your individual preferences and behaviors, it is useful for you as an individual. Stereotyping is something else, it's attributing traits to others based on some classification of them, rather than their own behavior. Specifically, regarding my coworker, I don't attribute these thinking patterns to him based on whether he is on the spectrum (I don't know, and I don't care), that would be stereotyping, but rather I observe a lot of the patterns in him, and therefore I think that he is on the spectrum. But maybe, because of everybody on the spectrum has a different experience, it is not useful to think about it that way. That however doesn't contradict that the thinking patterns described in the OP share a certain way of looking at the world, and as such might be useful, regardless how we call it. In particular, I can easily see my coworker getting fired (or contributing to it) for what he did yesterday (it was pretty scary, TBH), and I don't want that (luckily, I was the only witness). That's what could easily happen if we just naively assume him being neurotypical, that is, without looking at his individuality. And that's where I disagree with you that generalization like OP did is always harmful. In this case, general understanding of his thinking patterns by his coworkers might actually help him and others to avoid these problems (the feedback loop of negativity) in the future. In other words, you could use the OP's list correctly or incorrectly. Correct would be to look what behaviors are in a particular individual, and use the common explanation as a possible guide. Incorrect would be to assume that since you see some of them in an individual, they will also have other traits from that list. It seems to me you're really objecting to the incorrect usage, which is a logical error, but it doesn't really invalidate the explanation that is behind (at least some of) the items in the list. Addendum: I find meta-amusing that you write: "The author leans heavily into stereotypes and treats autistic people as a separate species with uniform deficiencies rather than individual people." Isn't that something you would exactly expect from somebody thinking like a person with the traits in the list, who is trying to "logically" (and perhaps in a bit of a black/white fashion) understand the world, without much regard about social mores?

FeepingCreature 5y ago

Which parts in specific would you say are wrong?

m_fayer 5y ago

There's plenty of autism in my family, I've read plenty on it, have plenty of personal experience, and plenty of empathy for autistic people. That said, most of this list hits home, and not just in a surface-way.

pfooti 5y ago

As an autistic person myself, but by no means an expert, I can say a few things. Adding here because there are at least two replies to parent that are the same "well, it seems like a useful list" at time of reply composition. First: Asperger's syndrome is not actually a recognized diagnosis anymore. It's all just autism and autism spectrum disorder. That's in part because we've recognized that it is all part of the same spectrum, and probably at least in part because Asperger was a Nazi. More about both points here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1 Second, while some of the notes in the gist align with my own personal, lived experience, the vibe of lacking empathy absolutely does not. The Leader article cited in the parent comment aligns better with my own experience at least. Third, that list is absolutely just a random box of facile observations. Note a particular thing about one particular autistic person, and try to coerce it into aligning with a mental model that you think must be true of all autistic people, with no particular actual supporting evidence. If you're interested in what it is like to be autistic in an informal way, I recommend trying to get your hands on a copy of "Sensory: Life on the Spectrum" https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schnumn/sensory-life-on-the-spectrum https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schnumn/sensory-life-on... as it is a good, crowd sourced book about all the different ways autism works. If you want a deeper, more scientific analysis of autism, there's plenty of peer reviewed literature out there. But the linked gist in OP is neither (a) peer reviewed literature nor (b) reflective of autistic experience in general at least. Finally, while some folks self-identity as "aspie", I would find it _extremely_ offensive if anyone used that word to refer to me or anyone else without express permission. Just say "autistic person".

stared 5y ago
> Asperger's syndrome is not actually a recognized diagnosis anymore True, but it is a recent change. At the time of writing (2014), it was a common term; it still has a Wikipedia page. Just because it uses one word or another, it does not make an article valid or invalid. (I am happy to redefine Asperger/HFA as Xvvbhj for the sake of a discussion.) I fully agree that there is no meaningful difference between Asperger Syndrome and High Functioning Autism. > Asperger was a Nazi Cancel culture at its best. Von Braun was a Nazi. Haber was a Nazi-sympathizer (putting himself in a difficult spot, since he was Jewish) and a horrible person in general. And? > absolutely just a random box of facile observations. Well, not. While most people don't hit all checkboxes, these points are very far from random. Happy to bet $100 that there is a statistical difference between autistic and neurotypical. > "Sensory: Life on the Spectrum" I don't know this one. > Finally, while some folks self-identity as "aspie", I would find it _extremely_ offensive if anyone used that word to refer to me or anyone else without express permission. I find this bizarre. And at least to me (I am autistic), very antithetical to autism. Things are true or not REGARDLESS who says them. I use the term "Aspie" and am equally OK with others referring to me that way.

stared 5y ago

I disagree. As someone on the autism spectrum and who read A LOT about high-functioning autism (including recent research papers, books, commentaries, discussions in autism communities), I still found a lot of helpful material in this article. Moreover, thanks to that, it helped me a lot with one of my relationships (with a geeky but non-autistic person). > clearly not written with any level of empathy for autistic people I find this statement bizarre. And yes, there are tons of materials without empathy towards autistic people. This one isn't.