When I read their official description of it, it strikes me as a pretty reasonable response for a not-as-social person forced by social context to engage with much-more-social people on an ongoing basis. Of course they'd be anxious and avoidant. Of course they'd become skilled at getting out of things that are unpleasant and unrewarding for them.

I should read more, but at first blush I'd see this not as a disease, but a coping strategy.

The trigger for the avoidant behaviour in PDA people isn't socialising, many of them including me very much enjoy socialising (although there may be stressed around social expectations). It's anything that's perceived as a demand (i.e. something that must be done, or is expected). For many people with PDA (esp. children) this can be things as simple as putting their shoes on or brushing their teeth. It may also include activities that they otherwise enjoy.

(Side note: if you're from the US, then you may see much more forced socialisation. In europe, quiet people are allowed to be quiet to a much greater degree. It's not seen as rude to be quiet here)

Wow, we don't quite know what autism is (don't know if it is a spectrum or a set of separate conditions) therefore it becomes possible to assign the label to almost every condition. I think that's amazing.

And I was unaware that children with foot infections, say, stubbornly refuse to brush their teeth as a result as you seem to suggest. (Sarcasm for Sarcasm.) Many children would rather avoid brushing their teeth. Few children are radically opposed to tooth-brushing, say to the point where they'll skip a meal to avoid it. I don't think you understand how unusual the behavior being discussed, is.

I'm totally open to this being a diagnosis. But I think the point is more that a kid with a foot infection who refuses demands would probably be called "independent". Stubborn, even. But it wouldn't necessarily be medicalized.

There was a recent study on ADHD and birthdates; the upshot was that kids on the younger end of the age spectrum are medicated for ADHD more if they're young for their grade. Which implies that some number of kids are medicated more for "teacher inconvenience syndrome" than any real disease.

There's a long history of medicine treating different as bad. (The formal academic term is "medicalization of deviance".) So I think it's worth being a bit skeptical that traits that teachers and parents might inconvenient are diseases on the order of foot infections. Rather than, say, how homosexuality was medicalized for decades.

> I still find a lot of these rules utterly bizarre.

Like what?

Not the person you replied to, but his description resonates with me too, so I can help explain.

One of the ones that bothers me constantly is the "buffer" of small talk that (particularly American) culture forces on us.

For instance: We work together. You have a pencil sharpener. I need to sharpen my pencil.

My preferred way of handling this situation: Hey Mike, can I borrow your pencil sharpener for a minute?

Now, this is OK in American culture, but ONLY IF you've spoken to each other recently. (I had to learn this the hard way.)

If you haven't, the conversation has to go like this:

Me: Hey Mike. Got a minute?

You: Sure. What's up?

Me: I was wondering, could I borrow your pencil sharpener really quick? I have this pencil I need to sharpen.

(And you should always insert a reason there; see https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-wise/201310/th...)

If you don't insert this social "fluff", you come across as rude.

Where this social buffer comes naturally to most people, I get frustrated and annoyed by it. I just want to borrow the dang pencil sharpener and get back to work!

I have come to understand I don't resemble neurotypicals when it comes to this interaction (and it is likely that many others here on HN are not neurotypical either.) NTs enjoy this fluff, and it helps them feel connected to each other. When I don't play by their rules, I'm viewed as cold and callous.

So...I play by their rules, because even though I'm not NT in this way, I still have basic human needs of wanting to feel loved and desired, and I don't want to upset other people.

> If you don't insert this social "fluff", you come across as rude.

Isn't this a bit overstated? I'm pretty sure that you could also use bog-standard politeness markers (like, "could you please", "I would really appreciate it", "sorry about asking") and so on and so forth. (You might then come across as being a bit formal and old-fashioned, but certainly not rude!) The underlying motivation in both cases is that you need to make it very clear that you're not issuing an outright demand - and you do this by making it easy for Mike to say no (for any reason or no reason!) and providing plausible deniability. There are things that are closer to "fluff" in other contexts, but even they have their own explanation.

I think you might be right. But autistic people may find it difficult to determine these underlying motivations, I think because neurotypical people only intuit them because their instinctive preferences happen to line up with other peoples. If an autistic persons instincts don't give them the same reaction, then it will not be obvious to them that other people will have that reaction (unless they have learnt that this is a common reaction that people have). It can be easy to end up with an overzealous rule, to be on the safe side.

If the justification for something is stated in terms of something that also isn't important to or felt by the autistic person (for example politness), then it can be difficult to be sure what does or does not transgress the social rule.

It's more about culture than neurotype. There's nothing in human nature itself or in human instincts that says "people will feel uncomfortable when refusing something that a stranger of equal social rank is asking of them, unless they have been provided with plausible deniability". It's a feature of our current (Western) culture. And since autism tends to come with issues relating to general intercultural competence, it's no wonder that someone who's autistic would have trouble picking this up. But so would any non-native in the relevant cultural context!

This seems like a reasonable interpretation. People from other cultures may also be excused from cultural norms to some extent as people understand that they don't have the context. And I've definitely gotten very good at politely diffusing situations where I've accidentally crossed social boundaries (I have more problems when I take moral issue with the social norm, and thus am unwilling to go along with it).

I'm highly social. FWIW, I think a lot of standard social expectations are maladapted to modern life. They try to impose a facade of social connection where none really exists and it's problematic, and not just for "aspie" types.

Really? In the uk it would be perfectly acceptable just to say "excuse me" or name (to get their attention) and then "please can I borrow your pencil sharpener?".

But definitely empathise with the idea of playing along with to please other people.

- The whole concept of authority: Wait, so I should do what my teacher or my boss says, even if it's completely dumb, just because they have some social status?

- The idea that you should do anything other than tell people directly if you have a romantic interest in them.

- Many politeness or etiquette rules. I get that you shouldn't outright insult people. But I don't understand things like not starting to eat before everyone has their food, fighting over who is going to pay for something, insisting that others go through a door before you (this might be a British thing).

- Gender norms. Why does it make any difference which sex you were born? (other than things that depend on physical characteristics, or are influenced by hormone levels)

This isn't really to do with social norms, but another thing I do that I associate with autism/PDA, is that I have a strong inclination to interpret things literally. usually, I pick up on sarcasm/irony or implied meanings. But also, really often I don't (but I usually very quickly realise that I've missed something based on how people react to my response)

> - Many politeness or etiquette rules. I get that you shouldn't outright insult people. But I don't understand things like not starting to eat before everyone has their food, fighting over who is going to pay for something, insisting that others go through a door before you (this might be a British thing).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taarof

"... a worker negotiating a salary might begin with a eulogy of the employer, followed by a lengthy bargaining session consisting entirely of indirect, polite language – both parties are expected to understand the implied topic of discussion. Likewise, a shopkeeper may initially refuse to quote a price for an item, suggesting that it is worthless ... Taarof obliges the customer to insist on paying, possibly several times (three times), before a shopkeeper finally quotes a price and real negotiation can begin."

"Taarof plays a large role in the etiquette of food. If you go to any meal, are invited to any house for food, then you will be expected to eat seconds and thirds. You must eat to please the host but at the same time taarof demands that you can’t just go ahead and dig into the food ..."