4 ms·

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 ta

by 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
- larve 4y ago
  replying here because of depth, but your latest response is a much more charitable and productive way of stating things, and one I fully agree with. The problem here is that the default position in society is: "you should just know intuitively what to do, and if you don't, it will be detrimental to you and your career". As you point out, being ND is not being able to intuit what is typical behavior, which means being faced with a catch-22. I can make up rules by which to play the game, but then I am by definition not intuitively handling situations. I have no way of knowing when to deviate from these rules and when not. If you tell me "our goal is to build a great product", which is what I thoroughly enjoy, yet I am expected to play some nuanced game of kiss up to your manager, then it is no surprise that I am going to at some point call out the bullshit and leave. It is not wrong nor dysfunctional. As illustrated by some of the responses here, NT people are not very proficient at understanding that people might play by different rules than their own either. Because are the majority, it is expected for ND people to "concede", and not the other way around. This is where we can all make progress. Part of the more widespread recognition of neurodiversity is that it provides more tools and knowledge for neurodiverse people to work within society, but similarly, provides neurotypical people more tools and knowledge to reduce discrimination and communicate with their fellow humans. For example, as a manager, being able to gracefully point out that the discussion is not productive, and either tabling it, or learning to listen better, or respectfully pointing out what might be going on and how to better approach such topics, rather than calling people pearl-clutchers, wrong or antagonistic, and ultimately firing them or demoting them. No-one benefits here, except maybe the manager's sense of being right. While some aspects of being ND are handicapping by themselves (say, sensory sensitivities), operating under different assumptions and models is only so when they lead to discrimination and backlash, instead of acceptance and accomodation. As a ND, I accomodate and mask pretty much 24/7 already.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    I honestly would not expect NT to stop emphasising such things due to the existence of ND people. It reminds me of someone I spoke to who is upset that they were criticised for sounding monotonous when presenting but it was due to their non native English accent. I’m sorry but it isn’t realistic to expect that people are going to rewire their entire social framework in order to cater to the social differences of a small minority. If you behave inappropriately people will call it out. That’s a tough problem for those who can’t distinguish when something is not appropriate

by larve 4y ago

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
larve 4y ago
replying here because of depth, but your latest response is a much more charitable and productive way of stating things, and one I fully agree with. The problem here is that the default position in society is: "you should just know intuitively what to do, and if you don't, it will be detrimental to you and your career". As you point out, being ND is not being able to intuit what is typical behavior, which means being faced with a catch-22. I can make up rules by which to play the game, but then I am by definition not intuitively handling situations. I have no way of knowing when to deviate from these rules and when not. If you tell me "our goal is to build a great product", which is what I thoroughly enjoy, yet I am expected to play some nuanced game of kiss up to your manager, then it is no surprise that I am going to at some point call out the bullshit and leave. It is not wrong nor dysfunctional. As illustrated by some of the responses here, NT people are not very proficient at understanding that people might play by different rules than their own either. Because are the majority, it is expected for ND people to "concede", and not the other way around. This is where we can all make progress. Part of the more widespread recognition of neurodiversity is that it provides more tools and knowledge for neurodiverse people to work within society, but similarly, provides neurotypical people more tools and knowledge to reduce discrimination and communicate with their fellow humans. For example, as a manager, being able to gracefully point out that the discussion is not productive, and either tabling it, or learning to listen better, or respectfully pointing out what might be going on and how to better approach such topics, rather than calling people pearl-clutchers, wrong or antagonistic, and ultimately firing them or demoting them. No-one benefits here, except maybe the manager's sense of being right. While some aspects of being ND are handicapping by themselves (say, sensory sensitivities), operating under different assumptions and models is only so when they lead to discrimination and backlash, instead of acceptance and accomodation. As a ND, I accomodate and mask pretty much 24/7 already.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  I honestly would not expect NT to stop emphasising such things due to the existence of ND people. It reminds me of someone I spoke to who is upset that they were criticised for sounding monotonous when presenting but it was due to their non native English accent. I’m sorry but it isn’t realistic to expect that people are going to rewire their entire social framework in order to cater to the social differences of a small minority. If you behave inappropriately people will call it out. That’s a tough problem for those who can’t distinguish when something is not appropriate