3 ms·

Oh man. Reading this hit hard on so many points for me. I am also autisic. I don’t agree generally with some of the conclusions and approach of the author, but

Oh man. Reading this hit hard on so many points for me. I am also autisic. I don’t agree generally with some of the conclusions and approach of the author, but I suspect they are navigating a truely hostile (to them) work environment. Now before you dismiss me, consider that autistic people are generally speaking… awful at recognizing situations that are actively hostile to them. And yes, Neurotypicals are sometime quite hostile to autisic people. I’ve been a victim of discrimination and outright campaigns to isolate and harass me. It happens. Sometimes it’s on purpose, sometimes it is a natural result of repeated conflict. Now, let’s say for example that you had a co-worker who actually had it out for you; would actively undermine your work, sabotage your efforts… for whatever reason. As a nuerotypical you would recognize this behavior quite quickly and develop a strategy around it. Perhaps that strategy involves talking to the right people, executing some kind of trap, confront the behavior head on, or simply walking away. Since an autisic person has difficulty detecting negative intent, they would instead try to puzzle out why the “clearly wrong” person just won’t listen to them. From that they draw these conclusions about themselves and the world around them about their behavior because they cannot understand the behavior of Nuerotypicals (to be fair here NTs don’t understand our behavior either). Trust me, I’ve drawn some pretty wild conclusions myself at times. To illustrate, I recently worked with a very Narcissistic and toxic personality. By all outside observers this was 100% dark triad kind of behavior in this person (I verified it with multiple independent opinions). Anyway, this person was so difficult to work with, so directly hostile, and so stressful to work with that I re-entered therapy where I, at 36 years of age finally learned two very important things. 1. Some people will want to fuck you up, just because they don’t like you. Not everyone is good or does good things. This is “irrational” but it is real. 2. Not everyone had the same capacity as you do… and you don’t have the same capacity as others. For those without your capacity you must teach, and for those that have capacity that you lack, you must learn. These two “rules” have finally demystified some aspects of office realpolitik for me. I suspect that the author, my fellow autistic, has yet to also understand this about people. Their intent might purposefully be to oppose you and undermine you. Ignore it, work around it, or leave. They will never be an ally to you. Stop trying.

larve 4y ago
I recognize myself quite well in those words. Thank god I didn't have to encounter an actively hostile person yet, but my big discovery last year was indeed that not everyone at work is motivated by doing a good job. It obviously sounds obvious when put like this, but it is something I wasn't able to put together in my own life. I have since left this job (my immediate colleagues and most people I worked with were great, it takes just a few individuals to really disrupt and dismantle good engineering), and am now in a place where I slowly had to discover how amazingly efficient and productive things can be when I am given trust and enough autonomy. I think I have 2. pretty well figured out. What I don't know how to handle (as evidenced by some comments here) is when to divulge how much I study / what fields I have a lot of experience in. I never understood where the boundary is between people thinking you are a know-it-all and arrogant, and thinking you are an idiot.
- ebjaas_2022 4y ago
  > What I don't know how to handle (as evidenced by some comments here) is when to divulge how much I study / what fields I have a lot of experience in. I never understood where the boundary is between people thinking you are a know-it-all and arrogant, and thinking you are an idiot. I think the thing to understand, is that non-autistics are very, very particular about the difference between what's inside their own mind, and what's inside your mind. Even on a topic that you may know "everything" about, you still know nothing about what the other person knows about the same subject. Everything on the right side of the below drawing (assuming that you're the one on the left) is in the dark to you, or close to it. And, likewise, everything on your side is in the dark to the other person. | O O | | ----- ( inner landscape (fact) ) ( inner landscape (fact) ) ----- | | | | | | / \ / \ | The process of discussion, as seen from the non-autistic person's point of view, is to let you peek into their mind, and to let you see what they know (or don't know) about the topic that's being discussed. And they expect you to let them peek into your mind, and to let them see what you know about the subject. What they are very particular about is that their facts (about the subject at hand) are their facts, and your facts are your facts. Their mental model is to try and align their own thoughts about the subject at hand with your thoughts about the subject. Their goal is for both of you to "see" each others minds, and to bring them into sync, on the topic at hand. It's a process of alignment of two minds, on a particular topic. | O O | | ----- ( inner landscape (fact) ) ----- | | | | | | / \ / \ | The autistic person, instead, has a tendency to think that when he has studied everything that there is to know about a subject it allows him to not consider the contents of the other person's mind, because the contents "should" be the same. This is what's considered as "arrogant" by the non-autistic counterpart. To him, when you do this - and I will stress this, even if you know everything there is to know in the world about a particular subject - it's a transgression. To him it's as if you disregard the existence of the contents of his mind. He wants you, and expects you, to consider the contents of his mind, even in the case where it's blank on a particular subject. What non-autistic persons react to, usually, is the blurring of the line between what's inside their mind, and what's inside your mind. When you see it as if you're just communicating the objective facts of the situation, and "divulging how much you've studied the topic", they view it as a transgression, and as a side-stepping of the natural process of "alignment of minds". Finally, since your user name has a sort of Nordic ring to it, I will disclose a related poem by the Norwegian poet Haldis Moren Vesaas (if you're not Nordic, just disregard it): ORD OVER GRIND Du går fram til mi inste grind og eg går òg fram til di. Innanfor den er kvar av oss einsam, og det skal vi alltid bli. Aldri trenge seg lenger fram, var lova som gjaldt oss to. Anten vi møttest titt eller sjeldan var møtet tillit og ro. Står du der ikkje ein dag eg kjem fell det meg lett å snu når eg har stått litt og sett mot huset og tenkt på at der bur du. Så lenge eg veit du vil kome iblant som no over knastrande grus og smile glad når du ser meg stå her, skal eg ha ein heim i mitt hus.

larve 4y ago

I recognize myself quite well in those words. Thank god I didn't have to encounter an actively hostile person yet, but my big discovery last year was indeed that not everyone at work is motivated by doing a good job. It obviously sounds obvious when put like this, but it is something I wasn't able to put together in my own life. I have since left this job (my immediate colleagues and most people I worked with were great, it takes just a few individuals to really disrupt and dismantle good engineering), and am now in a place where I slowly had to discover how amazingly efficient and productive things can be when I am given trust and enough autonomy. I think I have 2. pretty well figured out. What I don't know how to handle (as evidenced by some comments here) is when to divulge how much I study / what fields I have a lot of experience in. I never understood where the boundary is between people thinking you are a know-it-all and arrogant, and thinking you are an idiot.

ebjaas_2022 4y ago
> What I don't know how to handle (as evidenced by some comments here) is when to divulge how much I study / what fields I have a lot of experience in. I never understood where the boundary is between people thinking you are a know-it-all and arrogant, and thinking you are an idiot. I think the thing to understand, is that non-autistics are very, very particular about the difference between what's inside their own mind, and what's inside your mind. Even on a topic that you may know "everything" about, you still know nothing about what the other person knows about the same subject. Everything on the right side of the below drawing (assuming that you're the one on the left) is in the dark to you, or close to it. And, likewise, everything on your side is in the dark to the other person. | O O | | ----- ( inner landscape (fact) ) ( inner landscape (fact) ) ----- | | | | | | / \ / \ | The process of discussion, as seen from the non-autistic person's point of view, is to let you peek into their mind, and to let you see what they know (or don't know) about the topic that's being discussed. And they expect you to let them peek into your mind, and to let them see what you know about the subject. What they are very particular about is that their facts (about the subject at hand) are their facts, and your facts are your facts. Their mental model is to try and align their own thoughts about the subject at hand with your thoughts about the subject. Their goal is for both of you to "see" each others minds, and to bring them into sync, on the topic at hand. It's a process of alignment of two minds, on a particular topic. | O O | | ----- ( inner landscape (fact) ) ----- | | | | | | / \ / \ | The autistic person, instead, has a tendency to think that when he has studied everything that there is to know about a subject it allows him to not consider the contents of the other person's mind, because the contents "should" be the same. This is what's considered as "arrogant" by the non-autistic counterpart. To him, when you do this - and I will stress this, even if you know everything there is to know in the world about a particular subject - it's a transgression. To him it's as if you disregard the existence of the contents of his mind. He wants you, and expects you, to consider the contents of his mind, even in the case where it's blank on a particular subject. What non-autistic persons react to, usually, is the blurring of the line between what's inside their mind, and what's inside your mind. When you see it as if you're just communicating the objective facts of the situation, and "divulging how much you've studied the topic", they view it as a transgression, and as a side-stepping of the natural process of "alignment of minds". Finally, since your user name has a sort of Nordic ring to it, I will disclose a related poem by the Norwegian poet Haldis Moren Vesaas (if you're not Nordic, just disregard it): ORD OVER GRIND Du går fram til mi inste grind og eg går òg fram til di. Innanfor den er kvar av oss einsam, og det skal vi alltid bli. Aldri trenge seg lenger fram, var lova som gjaldt oss to. Anten vi møttest titt eller sjeldan var møtet tillit og ro. Står du der ikkje ein dag eg kjem fell det meg lett å snu når eg har stått litt og sett mot huset og tenkt på at der bur du. Så lenge eg veit du vil kome iblant som no over knastrande grus og smile glad når du ser meg stå her, skal eg ha ein heim i mitt hus.