9 ms·

thanks for reading, author here! the article is very much a response to a blame already expressed. People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verifi

by larve 4y ago

thanks for reading, author here! the article is very much a response to a blame already expressed. People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. Otherwise it’s a difference of opinions. These are my thoughts on why differences of opinions get phrased as “autistic people just can’t admit when they are wrong”, when myself and most autistic people I know in fact readily admit when we are wrong and move on all the time. I don’t think of blaming anybody here, that is you reading things into it. I just need explanations and strategies to handle these situations.

korijn 4y ago
> I don’t think of blaming anybody here, that is you reading things into it. Alright, thanks for responding directly to that. In my personal experience, people don't typically conclude that I would refuse to admit I'm wrong. The only conclusion drawn in my experience (usually) is that we're unable to get our points across, in both ways, and we should probably try to come back to the same topic again later and maybe prepare a little bit better.
- larve 4y ago
  That’s what I think is happening indeed, and I’m almost never the one shutting the conversation down. I didn’t go into “strategies” to address the issue in this article, mostly because I just don’t have enough experience to back it up, but I think recognizing that something is spiraling, saying “let’s continue in writing/retable this/i will try to understand your point of view” is something to try.
petercooper 4y ago
People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. We need to be careful, though, to not adopt black and white thinking even around "facts." Often, multiple contradictory factual things can be true at the same time and all pass verification. Illusions are a lighthearted example of this that helped me appreciate this point. For example, the Yanni/Laurel audio illusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel) where people on both sides argue, in good faith, that the sound is one or the other. And even if you analyze the underlying audio in depth, neither side is factually wrong because that is how they experience it and isn't merely based around an opinion :-)
- zelphirkalt 4y ago
  > Illusions are a lighthearted example of this that helped me appreciate this point. For example, the Yanni/Laurel audio illusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel) where people on both sides argue, in good faith, that the sound is one or the other. And even if you analyze the underlying audio in depth, neither side is factually wrong because that is how they experience it and isn't merely based around an opinion :-) This example does not add much. If it is how people experience, then the only fact they can derive is, that they personally experienced it that way. There is no point in fighting about "what it really is", when all you have is a personal exerience. Anyone saying it objectively is this one or that one, only based on personal experience, is not accounting for the fact, that others can experience differently, which is silly. In this light I assume, that you put quotes around "facts" as a means of saying, that they are not really facts, because if they were, then there would truly only be black and white.
- jjk166 4y ago
  So when I say it's Yanni, and you say it's Laurel, which of us is supposed to admit we're wrong? Neither of us are wrong, it's just a difference of opinions.
  - v64 4y ago
    In this case, the recording was of a person saying the word laurel as part of a collection of reference pronunciations. If you don't hear the word laurel, you're the one in the wrong, having been deceived by an audio illusion.
feet 4y ago
I've run into the same issues constantly throughout my life, especially when it comes to asking clarifying questions to get a grip on the situation. Something I'm going to do moving forward is first stating that I have a few questions that I need to ask to better understand the other's statement or question. I think this sharing of my perspective may help the conversation to move forward in a more productive manner. Thank you for putting this information out there! I hope it helps other people understand autistic communication and intentions a little bit better.
prometheus76 4y ago
The biggest insight I have had in my personal life is that relationships are more important than facts. Building and keeping long-term relationships at work and in my family is, by far, more important than being right every time (even if I can verify being right). Verifying it just makes the abrasion to the relationship worse.
- darkerside 4y ago
  Important caveat, for me, is that I want to be able to share my perspective, and believe that, over time, they will consider it, and it will impact their thinking. I think this is the case more often than people think.
  - prometheus76 4y ago
    Yes, I was more referring to insisting on being right and being dismissive of other viewpoints. I have caused incalculable damage to my personal relationships because of this pattern of behavior in myself.
    - larve 4y ago
      True, this is very much about the workplace. What follows is not really directed at you but rather reflecting on this whole comment section, I hope you forgive me :) IN the article, the only case where I insist on being right is in scenario #4, where I can actually demonstrate that a fact is true. In fact, it's not me being right, it's the result of the experiments I propose. Otherwise, I'm either asking questions, trying to actually state my opinion in the first place, or not willing to say something I don't agree with because it goes against my values. Agreeing or defusing the situation is necessary for personal relationships, but this is the workplace, and while it's good to be nice, it has to go both ways. The easiest way to deal with conflicting opinions in personal relationships is just to be curious, a good listener, and not (or rarely) state any opinions of your own. That might sound a bit sad, but I have plenty of fun debating opinions on my own, no need to involve other people. However, I'm not at work to read your mind and guess how you might interpret my words. I am at work to be an engineer and produce results, and I am an engineer because I love technology, not to make money and have a career. I also really don't want to antagonize people or prove my superiority or brag or retaliate, I legitimately just like solving problems to the best of the team's capabilities. Because I don't have an intuitive sense of how to react in a given situation, extending some empathy my way helps a lot. And for that, it's worth communicating my point of view: that I am not being patronizing; I am just asking questions I think are necessary. It's like asking a blind person to navigate around potholes. They might be able to do it, but it's also nice to understand they're not tripping on them on purpose.
sputr 4y ago
I hope you take this as constructive criticism, as it's not intended to offend: Your post reads extremely arrogantly. It's a "I am very smart" type of communication style. None of the points you bring up are specific to autistic individuals. I'm allistic (as you put it) and, realistically, not that intelligent, but I experience the first two of your points on a regular basis. But I've learned to modify my handling of these types of situations so that, most of the time, I get a positive/productive response. Now I obviously can't know how you communicate outside your blog posts. But it may be prudent to think about it – if you come across as arrogant or a "know it all", then the "you don't acknowledge when you're wrong" is just a nicer way of saying it. And when people get a “vibe” of arrogance/know-it-all-ness from a person, they will be much less willing to accept, well, anything. And for good reason. This especially applies to corrections, "let's play 20 questions" and long-winded explanations of context (especially if you explain something they already know, even partially).
- larve 4y ago
  I totally understand, and I knew it would be perceived this way. If I can trust my colleagues and friends, I come across as very humble. This article is the first time I ever mentioned publicly how much time I put into learning technology. The question is, when and how do I communicate that best without coming across as arrogant.
darkerside 4y ago
The tricky piece of this is that people can be right about the facts and still be wrong, or at least in complete disagreement with each other. This is because there is a latent opinion in each fact, which is that the fact matters and is relevant for the conversation at hand. If you start from your own set of priors and are getting nowhere, you probably want to consider there might be a more relevant fact (for that person, opinion alert!) that you don't know about and aren't considering.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  One time I was in an argument about whether something could be done within a six month timeframe, and when a manager dropped in and asked a few clarifying questions it became clear that the other guy was working from the underlying opinion that nobody cared at all about the deadline and they were really just arguing about whether they wanted to do it. The timeline was clearly literally impossible, but he did want to do it. Ended up that he told manager we could do it, manager was nuts and so signed us up, I left the team, they missed it by about two years. But he had fun, apparently.
notahacker 4y ago
> People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. Otherwise it’s a difference of opinions. This attitude is exactly what [neurotypical] people generally mean when they say "[some] autistic people can't acknowledge when they're wrong". Not that autistic people are so convinced of their own rightness that they stare at the compiler saying "my code is flawless, the compiler must be bugged" because there is literally no circumstance in which they will ever update their worldview. But that when it comes to cases where [multiple] people suggest that the question they asked or the tone they asked it in might have been suboptimal for the situation, they are likely to rationalise it as just unverifiable opinion or status games which can't be learned from (but nevertheless, the difference of opinion probably results from misreading by the other party)
- naasking 4y ago
  > But that when it comes to cases where [multiple] people suggest that the question they asked or the tone they asked it in might have been suboptimal for the situation, they are likely to rationalise it as just unverifiable opinion I mean, that judgment is literally a matter of opinion. If they had behaved the same in an office full of autistic people like them, or with people of another culture, the outcome would have been totally different. That said, sometimes opinions matter, like say, the legal rights of fetuses when it comes to abortion, to pick a recent example. So concluding something is a "difference of opinions" is not the end of the story, sometimes such differences need to be resolved.
- imtringued 4y ago
  I fail to grasp what "acknowledge when they're wrong" is supposed to mean. From what I can tell the author insists on deductive reasoning to determine whether something is right or wrong and any wrong conclusions are quickly discarded. Hence, there are only two options, right, not disproven (opinion).
  - notahacker 4y ago
    If somebody has a goal to communicate a certain thing, and does not succeed in communicating that because [nearly] everybody interprets them as being rude or obtuse instead, deductive reasoning would point to the conclusion that their approach to communication was the wrong one for the situation, and to the conclusion they should probably attempt to modify their communication if they wish to achieve a different result. (I appreciate that for autistic people, it might be particularly difficult to discern how or why their attempts to communicate a point do not succeed. I also appreciate that failed communication applies both ways, and that a neurotypical person telling an autist that they "never admit they're wrong" is a failure on the part of the neurotypical person to appreciate that this statement will most likely be interpreted hyper-literally) Alternative, one can avoid that reasoning and rationalise not discarding consistently failing conversational stratagems because the cause of the failed outcome of a conversation is a person's opinion which lacks the same consistency as mathematics (and therefore more effective conversational stratagems can - at best - only be supported evidentially by inductive reasoning). But that just leads to the wrong outcome more often.
camtarn 4y ago
I feel like the article isn't actually directly addressing its title. It could be stronger with some situations to when you were wrong, with examples of how that was swiftly resolved, as you mentioned in the intro paragraph. At the moment it feels like it takes for granted that you're good at resolving situations where you're objectively wrong, so it's only addressing situations where there was a difference of opinions. I'm not implying that you're bad at the former, of course. However, it's entirely possible for people to have trouble engaging you when there's a difference of opinion and for you not to be able to acknowledge when you're objectively wrong - i.e. that all of the issues you've identified in the article are happening, but that the title quote is still actually true.
- shlant 4y ago
  I think the point of the article is to express the ways in which it can feel like those on the spectrum are unwilling to admit they were wrong when it might not be what is happening by providing the perspective of the neurodivergent. I don't think an article providing a couple examples of how one individual was willing to admit they were wrong is providing much in terms of discussion or new perspectives. "See, I can admit I'm wrong!" would be a pretty shallow way of addressing what could often be a misunderstanding. Instead, the post is attempting to offer some insight into the different opinions people might have about interactions with an autistic and explanations for what is going on behind the scenes.
  - camtarn 4y ago
    Yep, I understood that, but I disagree :) But I do realise that that could also have made the article longer and less focused. I think the gain in clarity and context would be worth it, but that is definitely my opinion, and I'm no writer.
- larve 4y ago
  Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I think you are right. For every “you can’t admit you are wrong” discussion, I must have a 1000 discussions where I just go “oh you’re right” and move on. My default operating mode is being wrong and knowing I am, or knowing that alternative approaches are just as valid, or sometimes less valid but still bring value to the table. This was not easily learnt, but it just leads to better engineering so it’s a no brainer. I brush over it in a single sentence, and this is not enough, as evidenced in some comments here. I had a much longer first draft, much less focused, and edited it down to crystalline precision. The next article I write about the topic, I will chose the other approach, and see how that resonates. Thanks!
throwawaylinux 4y ago
People can also be objectively wrong when it comes to social interactions as well though. To give an example, if someone who is less technical asks you a question that does not give enough background information to give a precise technical answer on, the wrong thing to do is respond by first simply asking questions back at them. Particularly if the questions could be difficult for them to immediately see how it relates to answering their initial question. It doesn't matter that it's because you think holistically or they don't have as deep an understanding, or anything else. The right thing to do is try to stay with people in conversation. Explain your thinking, make sure they understand why you need to ask these questions before you can answer, or give them a range of possibilities that are dependent on these unknowns. And asking somebody to explain their reasoning and justification for their question before you begin to answer it is very rude, so that's wrong too. It's reasonable to expect more justification as requests become more time-intensive, but an initial response to a question should have some degree of good faith and politeness. Clearly they don't understand all the implications, which is why they asked for your opinion. So asking whether they understand all the implications of what they are asking is a rhetorical question and is basically calling them a moron. "Should we rewrite the checkout of our E-Commerce platform using React?" This question might sound like your manager is expecting a yes or no answer, but they aren't. They want some "conversation". They want your opinion, some explanation for it, an opening to continue the conversation. Even if you could answer with an unqualified "no" without further clarification and be correct on a technical basis, that response is wrong in this social interaction. "It's possible react could help with performance but it would be quite a lot of work. I don't think we should at this point unless we're seeing performance problems." Something like that would be a better answer.
- Bedon292 4y ago
  I don't know if I go so far as to say objectively wrong but definitely felt off. And other approaches would probably have been better. If it is a question: "Should we do X?" They are asking for an opinion about if it should be done or at least some sort of conversation. Not asking for you to make a decision. Just state an opinion based on what you know and follow up. "I doubt it, it would be a large investment of resources that may not lead to noticeable improvements. Why?" Is it rude to ask why someone is asking though? Understanding context can be good. It might be fine to ask something like "Why do you ask?" to get it started, before answering. Then, if relevant, follow up with those in depth questions. But just jumping into technical details feels like they are meant to shut the initiator down. If they come to you and say: "I think we should do X." Then those questions make more sense. "Why?" is still probably enough though. Let them elaborate on their thought process. And if it really is just they say something about it in a blog. You can explain the trade offs and guide them with your knowledge.
antasvara 4y ago
>People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. Otherwise it’s a difference of opinions. What doesn't come across in your article is that you can be wrong about factual things. It is unclear or unmentioned that you actually can be wrong sometimes. These communication patterns make sense with what I know about people. I don't doubt that they happen relatively frequently, and can result in a situation where it seems like you can't accept the wrong answer. But I would ask you to re-read the piece and find a single part where you admit that you can be wrong. I can only find one, and it's in the first paragraph. It also barely qualifies as admitting you can be wrong. None of this is to detract from the content of the piece. I just wish that it had been framed differently so that people could appreciate the insight without it coming across as egotistical.
- larve 4y ago
  Author here, thanks for the feedback. This article is indeed edited down heavily. I had more conversational drafts. Your remark is something I have been thinking about. For me, it’s patently evident that I’m wrong about 90% of the time when discussing facts. In fact, “truth” is one of my core values, and the only way I can honor that (and be a good engineer) is to question my every statement. That’s why I write unit tests, run experiments, read so many books, etc… When I know something is true, I tend to only state it once, because why would I need to repeat it. I am starting to realize this doesn’t work out that well :) These articles are in themselves a series of experiments to see how I can convey these thoughts.
  - antasvara 4y ago
    >When I know something is true, I tend to only state it once, because why would I need to repeat it. I am starting to realize this doesn’t work out that well :) The point I'm making is that you didn't state this once. You kind of stated it in the first paragraph, but not in a way that implies that you can be wrong for reasons that aren't miscommunications. >For me, it’s patently evident that I’m wrong about 90% of the time when discussing facts. I think that's the part that wasn't clear from the article. When you title an article "Autistic people can't acknowledge when they're wrong," then spend an article talking about how this is due to misunderstandings, it comes across like the exact rationalizations that your article strikes back against.
newsclues 4y ago
Seems like autistic people won’t let go of being right on factual things and others can disagree, at least that’s how I feel sometimes.
Volundr 4y ago
The thing is, at least in the first example, the way I read it isn't "autistic people can't admit when they are wrong". From your own telling of the story it seems like a manager asked you "Should we rewrite the checkout page in React?", and you responded with "Should we rewrite the checkout page in React?". You failed to realize that all of the questions you asked them are the question they were asking YOU. They've been reading articles about technical teams gaining things they don't really understand from switching to React. Maybe increased velocity (they know what velocity is but don't know how React increases it), reduced bundle sizes (what's a bundle? why do I care?), faster rendering times (faster is a good thing, right?), etc. But they don't have the knowledge to judge if React will do this for them. Answers to this question might be "No, we already use Angular which provides similar benefits to React", "Yes, switching to React from MooTools (I'm old) would simplify the design, increasing our velocity and probably resolve some annoying rendering bugs", or even "I'm not sure. Perhaps we should meet and discuss the weaknesses of that page and figure out if React is the right tool to resolve them". Instead they got back the questions they were hoping you'd answer for them. Many long years ago the CIO at a company I worked for asked if we could use machine learning to improve our data analytics. I responded with "I don't know, what kinds of questions are you hoping to answer?". We went back and forth on this several times, with me insisting you couldn't just throw machine learning at data without some idea of what your hoping to get back. This wasn't resolved until they brought in a vendor claiming to provide turnkey machine learning solutions, they ran it against our data and came up with the stunning insight that the biggest predictor of dollars sold was.... units sold. To be fair they did provide other data points, but it was all things we either already knew, or didn't care about and if we ever did could find out quickly. I failed to recognize that the question I was asking was a big part of what I was being asked. If I had realized this and provided some insight into the kinds of questions machine learning could answer, and why we didn't need sophisticated machine learning algorithms for the ones the business cared about I could have saved everyone some time. Instead I kept rephrasing the question back at him, with neither of us having the insight to realize we were actually asking the same question.
- larve 4y ago
  The questions you bring up are really the questions I am asking? What do they think the weaknesses of the page are? Do they think rewriting the checkout will solve these problems? How much of the technical tradeoffs do they understand or care about? To recap: Is our checkout page not performing well? Will a new checkout solve our problem? Why do they think a technology change is a solution? Do they understand the implications of such a switch? Otherwise I won't be able to assess if react makes sense or not. It makes sense for some reasons, not for others. If I don't know why they think we should consider it, I can't provide a valuable answer. These are exactly the points you are bringing up as well: I don't know, and I need your input to clarify what we are trying to do. I understand there is a communication problem, but I'm most definitely not refusing to accept I am wrong. I haven't even stated anything that could be wrong. And because I have fully put the blame on myself, after this particular interaction, the fact that I am able to work perfectly fine at a very strategic level with other stakeholders in my new job shows me that it's not just about me.
yowlingcat 4y ago
It looks like you are overfitting a couple cases of individuals mistreating you into a set of rules which are not true to reality. The reality of sociology and group psychology is a rich, vast tapestry of anthropological progression that numbers over 7B individuals today and countless others of their ancestors over the past 500M years; from when we began as apes and progressed into hominids and then sapiens. "The allistic (non-autistic) person is not hearing what I'm saying." "I care more about doing good work than office politics." "The person underestimates how much I know about the topic." These are statements that, when read on their face, seem to apply to disagreements that you have had with individuals. None of them seem to complain about (or even address) the ways clusters of people behave as a group. I don't think this blog post is actually about autistic people, or allistic people, at all. I think this post is about one person, and some other people that the person had conflict with. If the author is reading this, I think it would do you well to slightly reframe things in that light.
throwawayblah54 4y ago
There are two different things being discussed here, and it's creating a disconnect. The first is, "Can autistic people admit they are wrong when they themselves know deep down that they are?" The second is, "Can autistic people be easily convinced that they are wrong?" I'd say most commenters are expressing a "no" to #2, but your replies retreat to #1. I.e. you say that once you know you are wrong, you find it easy to admit it. However, given the content of your article, I'd speculate that it is very difficult to actually convince you that you are wrong in the first place.

by larve 4y ago

korijn 4y ago

> I don’t think of blaming anybody here, that is you reading things into it. Alright, thanks for responding directly to that. In my personal experience, people don't typically conclude that I would refuse to admit I'm wrong. The only conclusion drawn in my experience (usually) is that we're unable to get our points across, in both ways, and we should probably try to come back to the same topic again later and maybe prepare a little bit better.

larve 4y ago
That’s what I think is happening indeed, and I’m almost never the one shutting the conversation down. I didn’t go into “strategies” to address the issue in this article, mostly because I just don’t have enough experience to back it up, but I think recognizing that something is spiraling, saying “let’s continue in writing/retable this/i will try to understand your point of view” is something to try.

petercooper 4y ago

People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. We need to be careful, though, to not adopt black and white thinking even around "facts." Often, multiple contradictory factual things can be true at the same time and all pass verification. Illusions are a lighthearted example of this that helped me appreciate this point. For example, the Yanni/Laurel audio illusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel) where people on both sides argue, in good faith, that the sound is one or the other. And even if you analyze the underlying audio in depth, neither side is factually wrong because that is how they experience it and isn't merely based around an opinion :-)

zelphirkalt 4y ago
> Illusions are a lighthearted example of this that helped me appreciate this point. For example, the Yanni/Laurel audio illusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel) where people on both sides argue, in good faith, that the sound is one or the other. And even if you analyze the underlying audio in depth, neither side is factually wrong because that is how they experience it and isn't merely based around an opinion :-) This example does not add much. If it is how people experience, then the only fact they can derive is, that they personally experienced it that way. There is no point in fighting about "what it really is", when all you have is a personal exerience. Anyone saying it objectively is this one or that one, only based on personal experience, is not accounting for the fact, that others can experience differently, which is silly. In this light I assume, that you put quotes around "facts" as a means of saying, that they are not really facts, because if they were, then there would truly only be black and white.
jjk166 4y ago
So when I say it's Yanni, and you say it's Laurel, which of us is supposed to admit we're wrong? Neither of us are wrong, it's just a difference of opinions.
- v64 4y ago
  In this case, the recording was of a person saying the word laurel as part of a collection of reference pronunciations. If you don't hear the word laurel, you're the one in the wrong, having been deceived by an audio illusion.

feet 4y ago

I've run into the same issues constantly throughout my life, especially when it comes to asking clarifying questions to get a grip on the situation. Something I'm going to do moving forward is first stating that I have a few questions that I need to ask to better understand the other's statement or question. I think this sharing of my perspective may help the conversation to move forward in a more productive manner. Thank you for putting this information out there! I hope it helps other people understand autistic communication and intentions a little bit better.

prometheus76 4y ago

The biggest insight I have had in my personal life is that relationships are more important than facts. Building and keeping long-term relationships at work and in my family is, by far, more important than being right every time (even if I can verify being right). Verifying it just makes the abrasion to the relationship worse.

darkerside 4y ago
Important caveat, for me, is that I want to be able to share my perspective, and believe that, over time, they will consider it, and it will impact their thinking. I think this is the case more often than people think.
- prometheus76 4y ago
  Yes, I was more referring to insisting on being right and being dismissive of other viewpoints. I have caused incalculable damage to my personal relationships because of this pattern of behavior in myself.
  - larve 4y ago
    True, this is very much about the workplace. What follows is not really directed at you but rather reflecting on this whole comment section, I hope you forgive me :) IN the article, the only case where I insist on being right is in scenario #4, where I can actually demonstrate that a fact is true. In fact, it's not me being right, it's the result of the experiments I propose. Otherwise, I'm either asking questions, trying to actually state my opinion in the first place, or not willing to say something I don't agree with because it goes against my values. Agreeing or defusing the situation is necessary for personal relationships, but this is the workplace, and while it's good to be nice, it has to go both ways. The easiest way to deal with conflicting opinions in personal relationships is just to be curious, a good listener, and not (or rarely) state any opinions of your own. That might sound a bit sad, but I have plenty of fun debating opinions on my own, no need to involve other people. However, I'm not at work to read your mind and guess how you might interpret my words. I am at work to be an engineer and produce results, and I am an engineer because I love technology, not to make money and have a career. I also really don't want to antagonize people or prove my superiority or brag or retaliate, I legitimately just like solving problems to the best of the team's capabilities. Because I don't have an intuitive sense of how to react in a given situation, extending some empathy my way helps a lot. And for that, it's worth communicating my point of view: that I am not being patronizing; I am just asking questions I think are necessary. It's like asking a blind person to navigate around potholes. They might be able to do it, but it's also nice to understand they're not tripping on them on purpose.

sputr 4y ago

I hope you take this as constructive criticism, as it's not intended to offend: Your post reads extremely arrogantly. It's a "I am very smart" type of communication style. None of the points you bring up are specific to autistic individuals. I'm allistic (as you put it) and, realistically, not that intelligent, but I experience the first two of your points on a regular basis. But I've learned to modify my handling of these types of situations so that, most of the time, I get a positive/productive response. Now I obviously can't know how you communicate outside your blog posts. But it may be prudent to think about it – if you come across as arrogant or a "know it all", then the "you don't acknowledge when you're wrong" is just a nicer way of saying it. And when people get a “vibe” of arrogance/know-it-all-ness from a person, they will be much less willing to accept, well, anything. And for good reason. This especially applies to corrections, "let's play 20 questions" and long-winded explanations of context (especially if you explain something they already know, even partially).

larve 4y ago
I totally understand, and I knew it would be perceived this way. If I can trust my colleagues and friends, I come across as very humble. This article is the first time I ever mentioned publicly how much time I put into learning technology. The question is, when and how do I communicate that best without coming across as arrogant.

darkerside 4y ago

The tricky piece of this is that people can be right about the facts and still be wrong, or at least in complete disagreement with each other. This is because there is a latent opinion in each fact, which is that the fact matters and is relevant for the conversation at hand. If you start from your own set of priors and are getting nowhere, you probably want to consider there might be a more relevant fact (for that person, opinion alert!) that you don't know about and aren't considering.

lazyasciiart 4y ago
One time I was in an argument about whether something could be done within a six month timeframe, and when a manager dropped in and asked a few clarifying questions it became clear that the other guy was working from the underlying opinion that nobody cared at all about the deadline and they were really just arguing about whether they wanted to do it. The timeline was clearly literally impossible, but he did want to do it. Ended up that he told manager we could do it, manager was nuts and so signed us up, I left the team, they missed it by about two years. But he had fun, apparently.

notahacker 4y ago

> People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. Otherwise it’s a difference of opinions. This attitude is exactly what [neurotypical] people generally mean when they say "[some] autistic people can't acknowledge when they're wrong". Not that autistic people are so convinced of their own rightness that they stare at the compiler saying "my code is flawless, the compiler must be bugged" because there is literally no circumstance in which they will ever update their worldview. But that when it comes to cases where [multiple] people suggest that the question they asked or the tone they asked it in might have been suboptimal for the situation, they are likely to rationalise it as just unverifiable opinion or status games which can't be learned from (but nevertheless, the difference of opinion probably results from misreading by the other party)

naasking 4y ago
> But that when it comes to cases where [multiple] people suggest that the question they asked or the tone they asked it in might have been suboptimal for the situation, they are likely to rationalise it as just unverifiable opinion I mean, that judgment is literally a matter of opinion. If they had behaved the same in an office full of autistic people like them, or with people of another culture, the outcome would have been totally different. That said, sometimes opinions matter, like say, the legal rights of fetuses when it comes to abortion, to pick a recent example. So concluding something is a "difference of opinions" is not the end of the story, sometimes such differences need to be resolved.
imtringued 4y ago
I fail to grasp what "acknowledge when they're wrong" is supposed to mean. From what I can tell the author insists on deductive reasoning to determine whether something is right or wrong and any wrong conclusions are quickly discarded. Hence, there are only two options, right, not disproven (opinion).
- notahacker 4y ago
  If somebody has a goal to communicate a certain thing, and does not succeed in communicating that because [nearly] everybody interprets them as being rude or obtuse instead, deductive reasoning would point to the conclusion that their approach to communication was the wrong one for the situation, and to the conclusion they should probably attempt to modify their communication if they wish to achieve a different result. (I appreciate that for autistic people, it might be particularly difficult to discern how or why their attempts to communicate a point do not succeed. I also appreciate that failed communication applies both ways, and that a neurotypical person telling an autist that they "never admit they're wrong" is a failure on the part of the neurotypical person to appreciate that this statement will most likely be interpreted hyper-literally) Alternative, one can avoid that reasoning and rationalise not discarding consistently failing conversational stratagems because the cause of the failed outcome of a conversation is a person's opinion which lacks the same consistency as mathematics (and therefore more effective conversational stratagems can - at best - only be supported evidentially by inductive reasoning). But that just leads to the wrong outcome more often.

camtarn 4y ago

I feel like the article isn't actually directly addressing its title. It could be stronger with some situations to when you were wrong, with examples of how that was swiftly resolved, as you mentioned in the intro paragraph. At the moment it feels like it takes for granted that you're good at resolving situations where you're objectively wrong, so it's only addressing situations where there was a difference of opinions. I'm not implying that you're bad at the former, of course. However, it's entirely possible for people to have trouble engaging you when there's a difference of opinion and for you not to be able to acknowledge when you're objectively wrong - i.e. that all of the issues you've identified in the article are happening, but that the title quote is still actually true.

shlant 4y ago
I think the point of the article is to express the ways in which it can feel like those on the spectrum are unwilling to admit they were wrong when it might not be what is happening by providing the perspective of the neurodivergent. I don't think an article providing a couple examples of how one individual was willing to admit they were wrong is providing much in terms of discussion or new perspectives. "See, I can admit I'm wrong!" would be a pretty shallow way of addressing what could often be a misunderstanding. Instead, the post is attempting to offer some insight into the different opinions people might have about interactions with an autistic and explanations for what is going on behind the scenes.
- camtarn 4y ago
  Yep, I understood that, but I disagree :) But I do realise that that could also have made the article longer and less focused. I think the gain in clarity and context would be worth it, but that is definitely my opinion, and I'm no writer.
larve 4y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I think you are right. For every “you can’t admit you are wrong” discussion, I must have a 1000 discussions where I just go “oh you’re right” and move on. My default operating mode is being wrong and knowing I am, or knowing that alternative approaches are just as valid, or sometimes less valid but still bring value to the table. This was not easily learnt, but it just leads to better engineering so it’s a no brainer. I brush over it in a single sentence, and this is not enough, as evidenced in some comments here. I had a much longer first draft, much less focused, and edited it down to crystalline precision. The next article I write about the topic, I will chose the other approach, and see how that resonates. Thanks!

throwawaylinux 4y ago

People can also be objectively wrong when it comes to social interactions as well though. To give an example, if someone who is less technical asks you a question that does not give enough background information to give a precise technical answer on, the wrong thing to do is respond by first simply asking questions back at them. Particularly if the questions could be difficult for them to immediately see how it relates to answering their initial question. It doesn't matter that it's because you think holistically or they don't have as deep an understanding, or anything else. The right thing to do is try to stay with people in conversation. Explain your thinking, make sure they understand why you need to ask these questions before you can answer, or give them a range of possibilities that are dependent on these unknowns. And asking somebody to explain their reasoning and justification for their question before you begin to answer it is very rude, so that's wrong too. It's reasonable to expect more justification as requests become more time-intensive, but an initial response to a question should have some degree of good faith and politeness. Clearly they don't understand all the implications, which is why they asked for your opinion. So asking whether they understand all the implications of what they are asking is a rhetorical question and is basically calling them a moron. "Should we rewrite the checkout of our E-Commerce platform using React?" This question might sound like your manager is expecting a yes or no answer, but they aren't. They want some "conversation". They want your opinion, some explanation for it, an opening to continue the conversation. Even if you could answer with an unqualified "no" without further clarification and be correct on a technical basis, that response is wrong in this social interaction. "It's possible react could help with performance but it would be quite a lot of work. I don't think we should at this point unless we're seeing performance problems." Something like that would be a better answer.

Bedon292 4y ago
I don't know if I go so far as to say objectively wrong but definitely felt off. And other approaches would probably have been better. If it is a question: "Should we do X?" They are asking for an opinion about if it should be done or at least some sort of conversation. Not asking for you to make a decision. Just state an opinion based on what you know and follow up. "I doubt it, it would be a large investment of resources that may not lead to noticeable improvements. Why?" Is it rude to ask why someone is asking though? Understanding context can be good. It might be fine to ask something like "Why do you ask?" to get it started, before answering. Then, if relevant, follow up with those in depth questions. But just jumping into technical details feels like they are meant to shut the initiator down. If they come to you and say: "I think we should do X." Then those questions make more sense. "Why?" is still probably enough though. Let them elaborate on their thought process. And if it really is just they say something about it in a blog. You can explain the trade offs and guide them with your knowledge.

antasvara 4y ago

>People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. Otherwise it’s a difference of opinions. What doesn't come across in your article is that you can be wrong about factual things. It is unclear or unmentioned that you actually can be wrong sometimes. These communication patterns make sense with what I know about people. I don't doubt that they happen relatively frequently, and can result in a situation where it seems like you can't accept the wrong answer. But I would ask you to re-read the piece and find a single part where you admit that you can be wrong. I can only find one, and it's in the first paragraph. It also barely qualifies as admitting you can be wrong. None of this is to detract from the content of the piece. I just wish that it had been framed differently so that people could appreciate the insight without it coming across as egotistical.

larve 4y ago
Author here, thanks for the feedback. This article is indeed edited down heavily. I had more conversational drafts. Your remark is something I have been thinking about. For me, it’s patently evident that I’m wrong about 90% of the time when discussing facts. In fact, “truth” is one of my core values, and the only way I can honor that (and be a good engineer) is to question my every statement. That’s why I write unit tests, run experiments, read so many books, etc… When I know something is true, I tend to only state it once, because why would I need to repeat it. I am starting to realize this doesn’t work out that well :) These articles are in themselves a series of experiments to see how I can convey these thoughts.
- antasvara 4y ago
  >When I know something is true, I tend to only state it once, because why would I need to repeat it. I am starting to realize this doesn’t work out that well :) The point I'm making is that you didn't state this once. You kind of stated it in the first paragraph, but not in a way that implies that you can be wrong for reasons that aren't miscommunications. >For me, it’s patently evident that I’m wrong about 90% of the time when discussing facts. I think that's the part that wasn't clear from the article. When you title an article "Autistic people can't acknowledge when they're wrong," then spend an article talking about how this is due to misunderstandings, it comes across like the exact rationalizations that your article strikes back against.

newsclues 4y ago

Seems like autistic people won’t let go of being right on factual things and others can disagree, at least that’s how I feel sometimes.

Volundr 4y ago

The thing is, at least in the first example, the way I read it isn't "autistic people can't admit when they are wrong". From your own telling of the story it seems like a manager asked you "Should we rewrite the checkout page in React?", and you responded with "Should we rewrite the checkout page in React?". You failed to realize that all of the questions you asked them are the question they were asking YOU. They've been reading articles about technical teams gaining things they don't really understand from switching to React. Maybe increased velocity (they know what velocity is but don't know how React increases it), reduced bundle sizes (what's a bundle? why do I care?), faster rendering times (faster is a good thing, right?), etc. But they don't have the knowledge to judge if React will do this for them. Answers to this question might be "No, we already use Angular which provides similar benefits to React", "Yes, switching to React from MooTools (I'm old) would simplify the design, increasing our velocity and probably resolve some annoying rendering bugs", or even "I'm not sure. Perhaps we should meet and discuss the weaknesses of that page and figure out if React is the right tool to resolve them". Instead they got back the questions they were hoping you'd answer for them. Many long years ago the CIO at a company I worked for asked if we could use machine learning to improve our data analytics. I responded with "I don't know, what kinds of questions are you hoping to answer?". We went back and forth on this several times, with me insisting you couldn't just throw machine learning at data without some idea of what your hoping to get back. This wasn't resolved until they brought in a vendor claiming to provide turnkey machine learning solutions, they ran it against our data and came up with the stunning insight that the biggest predictor of dollars sold was.... units sold. To be fair they did provide other data points, but it was all things we either already knew, or didn't care about and if we ever did could find out quickly. I failed to recognize that the question I was asking was a big part of what I was being asked. If I had realized this and provided some insight into the kinds of questions machine learning could answer, and why we didn't need sophisticated machine learning algorithms for the ones the business cared about I could have saved everyone some time. Instead I kept rephrasing the question back at him, with neither of us having the insight to realize we were actually asking the same question.

larve 4y ago
The questions you bring up are really the questions I am asking? What do they think the weaknesses of the page are? Do they think rewriting the checkout will solve these problems? How much of the technical tradeoffs do they understand or care about? To recap: Is our checkout page not performing well? Will a new checkout solve our problem? Why do they think a technology change is a solution? Do they understand the implications of such a switch? Otherwise I won't be able to assess if react makes sense or not. It makes sense for some reasons, not for others. If I don't know why they think we should consider it, I can't provide a valuable answer. These are exactly the points you are bringing up as well: I don't know, and I need your input to clarify what we are trying to do. I understand there is a communication problem, but I'm most definitely not refusing to accept I am wrong. I haven't even stated anything that could be wrong. And because I have fully put the blame on myself, after this particular interaction, the fact that I am able to work perfectly fine at a very strategic level with other stakeholders in my new job shows me that it's not just about me.

yowlingcat 4y ago

It looks like you are overfitting a couple cases of individuals mistreating you into a set of rules which are not true to reality. The reality of sociology and group psychology is a rich, vast tapestry of anthropological progression that numbers over 7B individuals today and countless others of their ancestors over the past 500M years; from when we began as apes and progressed into hominids and then sapiens. "The allistic (non-autistic) person is not hearing what I'm saying." "I care more about doing good work than office politics." "The person underestimates how much I know about the topic." These are statements that, when read on their face, seem to apply to disagreements that you have had with individuals. None of them seem to complain about (or even address) the ways clusters of people behave as a group. I don't think this blog post is actually about autistic people, or allistic people, at all. I think this post is about one person, and some other people that the person had conflict with. If the author is reading this, I think it would do you well to slightly reframe things in that light.

throwawayblah54 4y ago

There are two different things being discussed here, and it's creating a disconnect. The first is, "Can autistic people admit they are wrong when they themselves know deep down that they are?" The second is, "Can autistic people be easily convinced that they are wrong?" I'd say most commenters are expressing a "no" to #2, but your replies retreat to #1. I.e. you say that once you know you are wrong, you find it easy to admit it. However, given the content of your article, I'd speculate that it is very difficult to actually convince you that you are wrong in the first place.