4 ms·

My take on this (as ND): Why concede if the topic is not a topic of taste? And who should concede to whom? I personally can't tell you that you are right if I

by larve 4y ago

My take on this (as ND): Why concede if the topic is not a topic of taste? And who should concede to whom? I personally can't tell you that you are right if I think you are wrong. That is lying and disingenuous. I have learned to just walk away.

bowsamic 4y ago
> I have learned to just walk away. That's what I mean by conceding, just saying "fair enough" and shutting up
- larve 4y ago
  That's not an option in a professional context, usually. If you are coming to me asking for an opinion about a project, say, what is the point of walking away? In those cases I won't let it go, since I'm here to build a product, not play mind games.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    Wrong. Your job is to play mind games, because that's what keeps you getting paid and puts you ahead in line for raises and promotions. The mind games are so structured that a product may hopefully emerge from them, but if you want to keep food on the table, never forget what comes first. If you fail to build a product, the team takes collective responsibility and they can RCA that and design more effective mind games for the future. If you fail to play the games, you will be singled out and fired.
    - larve 4y ago
      This is where I walk away. There are work environments where this is not necessary. I would also point out that your whole post illustrates what we have been talking about in this thread. I have a different context. It might not fit your reality, but there are better words to use than "wrong".
      - bowsamic 4y ago
        Yeah you may walk away, but exactly what I'm suggesting is that autistic people do, and NT people don't, because the latter are willing to concede, while the former are pearl clutchers
        larve 4y ago
        I don't see what that has to do with pearl clutching. I entirely understand that people are ok "conceding" for political reasons, in order to further their career or "keep the social peace". That is different than admitting that you are wrong (you are not). I very much prefer to stand by my professional opinion (as in, I am professional about my craft), and not compromise, even if it has career consequences. This is not "wrong", nor "pearl clutching". I just operate in a different context. and am not antagonistic either. What is however antagonistic and bullying is being so certain that what I care about is "wrong" and "pearl clutching" and dysfunctional. The stated goal of a company is to build a product that generates revenue. At an individual level you might want to play a different game, and make the person you report to look good so you can score your next promotion. I don't really care about scoring my next promotion. What I care about is building good products, and don't see why I would "concede" and compromise on my skill building said products. Otherwise, where do I draw the line? Do I just concede as soon as someone disagrees with me? After 5 minutes? If it's my manager? If the person is taller than me? If they are louder? If they start calling me a pearl clutcher? I might do it once or twice, sure. But then I'll walk.
        bowsamic 4y ago
        I’m saying that autistic people are more likely to stand up for their principles to the point of detriment, while NT people are more likely to give in for the sake of maintaining social order > Otherwise, where do I draw the line? Do I just concede as soon as someone disagrees with me? After 5 minutes? If it's my manager? If the person is taller than me? If they are louder? If they start calling me a pearl clutcher? I would say that the fact that you do not have an intuitive sense of when to concede is a symptom of autism or at least of not being NT. It is clear to NT people, we generally don’t have to rationally handle it directly, it’s intuitive
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    It absolutely is. IMO a big part of being autistic is thinking that it isn't. NT people recognise that you can bullshit or give up in every situation. Autistic people hang on out of "principle"

by larve 4y ago

bowsamic 4y ago

> I have learned to just walk away. That's what I mean by conceding, just saying "fair enough" and shutting up

larve 4y ago
That's not an option in a professional context, usually. If you are coming to me asking for an opinion about a project, say, what is the point of walking away? In those cases I won't let it go, since I'm here to build a product, not play mind games.
- bitwize 4y ago
  Wrong. Your job is to play mind games, because that's what keeps you getting paid and puts you ahead in line for raises and promotions. The mind games are so structured that a product may hopefully emerge from them, but if you want to keep food on the table, never forget what comes first. If you fail to build a product, the team takes collective responsibility and they can RCA that and design more effective mind games for the future. If you fail to play the games, you will be singled out and fired.
  - larve 4y ago
    This is where I walk away. There are work environments where this is not necessary. I would also point out that your whole post illustrates what we have been talking about in this thread. I have a different context. It might not fit your reality, but there are better words to use than "wrong".
    - bowsamic 4y ago
      Yeah you may walk away, but exactly what I'm suggesting is that autistic people do, and NT people don't, because the latter are willing to concede, while the former are pearl clutchers
      - larve 4y ago
        I don't see what that has to do with pearl clutching. I entirely understand that people are ok "conceding" for political reasons, in order to further their career or "keep the social peace". That is different than admitting that you are wrong (you are not). I very much prefer to stand by my professional opinion (as in, I am professional about my craft), and not compromise, even if it has career consequences. This is not "wrong", nor "pearl clutching". I just operate in a different context. and am not antagonistic either. What is however antagonistic and bullying is being so certain that what I care about is "wrong" and "pearl clutching" and dysfunctional. The stated goal of a company is to build a product that generates revenue. At an individual level you might want to play a different game, and make the person you report to look good so you can score your next promotion. I don't really care about scoring my next promotion. What I care about is building good products, and don't see why I would "concede" and compromise on my skill building said products. Otherwise, where do I draw the line? Do I just concede as soon as someone disagrees with me? After 5 minutes? If it's my manager? If the person is taller than me? If they are louder? If they start calling me a pearl clutcher? I might do it once or twice, sure. But then I'll walk.
        bowsamic 4y ago
        I’m saying that autistic people are more likely to stand up for their principles to the point of detriment, while NT people are more likely to give in for the sake of maintaining social order > Otherwise, where do I draw the line? Do I just concede as soon as someone disagrees with me? After 5 minutes? If it's my manager? If the person is taller than me? If they are louder? If they start calling me a pearl clutcher? I would say that the fact that you do not have an intuitive sense of when to concede is a symptom of autism or at least of not being NT. It is clear to NT people, we generally don’t have to rationally handle it directly, it’s intuitive
- bowsamic 4y ago
  It absolutely is. IMO a big part of being autistic is thinking that it isn't. NT people recognise that you can bullshit or give up in every situation. Autistic people hang on out of "principle"