The question of authenticity, though interesting philosophically speaking, I think can be safely downgraded to simply "how it works in practice". Most people seem to do it out of some sort of instinct, and most people really are telegraphing their true feelings and intentions to varying degrees.
What I think that happens: my insula attached to the default mode network and is feeding information into it. It gives the ability of being much more sensitive at certain forms of empathy.
I remember before I went in thinking: research says I'll be better at emotional intelligence when I do this, I wonder what will happen. 10 days later I realized I became a lot better at empathy. So my emotional intelligence did grow :)
There's quite some research on this, but I'm going to be lazy and simply recommend Search Inside Yourself.
Disclaimer: the experience discussed in this comment is one of the reasons why I chose my username back in the day. So I'm biased.
The issue is: the practice that I got was amazing, but the theory is... not worth listening to. Fortunately, it was cheap, so 10 hours of practice and 1 hour of entertainment (is what I called it) was fine.
Though, if others have other Vipassana retreats, then don't consider this one as better.
Also: I wouldn't go in expecting that you'll experience my description above. However, you can go in with the idea that you're training your emotional intelligence, somehow. It's up to you to discover how it happened. For me the effect was screamingly obvious. But I can't guarantee that it will be for you and if it isn't then it's tough to distinguish it from placebo. With all those disclaimers in place, the above website is where I did a retreat (3 times now).
I noticed the same struggle when I talk to more extroverted people abouth the problems when approaching people.
That sounds like a dishonest way of treating people, and might be a reason why some people prefer to be more introvert.
Look at it like this:
I have a friend.
Friends try to do good things for each other.
My friend seems different today than they are usually.
They are sad.
My friend likes getting flowers.
I want them to be happier.
I will say something nice and buy them a flower.
It cheered them up a bit.
I will ask how they are, because I notice that other people do that for their friends and it helps.
On the one hand you could say, hey that's calculated manipulation. Which it kind of is and that sounds negative and dishonest.
But there is nothing dishonest about it. It's something many people might do without even thinking about which is why it seems odd to spell out as a rational process. But if you don't get it intuitively, you may have to resort to a rational process to figure out how to cheer your friend up.
I used to work with young adults on the autism spectrum at a ymca camp and the higher functioning folks lacked the ability to intuitively interact with others- the same way I might not intuitively understand engineering problems. I get frustrated by them and don’t know what to do. Imagine if that is how you felt interacting with people on a very basic basis.
When people are naturally good in social situations, they're primarily using system 1 for decision making such as "what should my facial expression be". It's kind of a state of flow, in which system 2 mostly just observes what system 1 is doing, without micromanaging every face muscle, intonation, sentence, etc.
This may also be a reason why introverts find social interaction tiring.
(This is just my understanding.)
Except when it's not.
It hold advices that can be generalized to improve your ability to learn without using analysis and develop natural actions in a given field.
Apply it to social interactions. Those are much better for everyone involved when you mostly instinctively react, yet subtly adjust using logic, not the opposite.
I think it's just a matter of effective control of yourself and a full understanding of the people and situation you're in. Most people on the spectrum struggle with the understanding bit, or the control bit, or both. I'm really lucky in that I'm pretty decent at both halves, so I don't think there's a true "secret to learn", it's more about capacity and ability.
The biggest thing I've learned is that I don't really like myself when I'm in full-facsimile mode, and so I consciously try to lower the facade whenever possible, but it's difficult after a lifetime of training by social sanctions.
Care to elaborate on this? What is the facsimile mode? My intuition tells me it’s the mirroring of the social interaction. If that’s what you mean I might have similar feelings towards it, I sometimes find some interactions awkward if I am too aware. If im lost in the flow it all goes much better
I am still not sure whether I am on the spectrum and wouldn't help me out much to be diagnosed, I've accepted a long time ago that I am somewhat different from the norm but not necessarily in a bad way, I simply am not a very good speaking person - I do excel in other modes of communication, just not with words. But I guess with hard work one can train to perform something that they're not natively apt to do just to get the job done, one doesn't have to strive to be best because that puts too much pressure and leads to stress. I hope you be compassionate and comfortable with yourself:)
Let me ask you one more thing. Do you dance at all? If not can you describe why not? I'm very curious.
I have danced, and do dance, but it's not exactly my favorite thing. Not super compelling to me.
Sometimes they want to do fraudulent things and are obviously willing to implicate others and I just steer them away and give them another option. I think they like that they are spotted but not shunned.
Or maybe I'm a mark to them, or maybe I'm a sociopath too. To the top of society you say? That's the plan..
But they aren't retreating because they've been found out. I just point out how the legitimate way is actually more lucrative.
(ie. maybe they want a commission deal on an impossible financial product that a client is interested in because the risks haven't been disclosed, I tell them we can offer a legitimate financial product with 2% management fees and 20% of profits and make way more money)
I've heard sociopaths even excuse their "eccentric inattention to others" as possibly having asperger tendencies! Most people still lack experience to even understand they are poles apart.
Regarding projections, burn the "rule book". Setting up "outside" people for failure is common but not enough to distinguish. Bullying, condescending remarks, getting others to chime in. It starts with boasting about the last victim, then you're next.
Only thing that can stop it is people stop tolerating abuse in their environment. USA is now "it".
I also realize I wasn't clear here, so lets says you have a person A who is a sociopath talk to person B. After that interaction person A comes to person C (me in this example) and says "I don't know, they strike me as a sociopath."
Now in these cases, when I've had enough interaction with Person A in other situations, to feel confident in my understanding of their challenges, and when the feedback on Person B from other sources are not reflective of that perception, and are typically hard over the other way ("this person is so empathic" kinds of things).
I hypothesize that the body language of Person B was signaling to Person A that their masking was not as effective as they would have liked.
The other thing I wanted to be clear about is that it isn't a judgement about them either way, people are who they are. What is important as a manager is understanding the dynamics of your team and how they perceive the world and evaluate it. One has to do that if you have any chance at all of working together effectively.
If A is not a conscious bully (for lack of a better term), B could be perceived as artificial, weak, blunt, out of bounds, insulting, exploitative, etc. Reaction is to push "out" and "defend", maybe "as if" leader. Introspection at A may overcome reaction, though may need reassurance from respected source (=leadership). A and B will probably never work great together, though minimal interaction can work consciously. How A and B relates defines span of real org culture (in heaven).
It is much more productive to simply watch the videos how people are doing it.
A lot of extroverted people are intelligently sociable and are very aware of what's going on, to the point it's natural for them.
I think that most of those people kind of assume others are the same way and so might not be quite as sympathetic to those with low EI.
The weird kids get bullied because they are legitimately weird. But pretending to be normal is difficult and tiring and inevitably you say or do enough unusual stuff that you give off weird "vibes".
And what we call "bad vibes" are often just people picking up subconsciously on subtle abnormal behaviors. I doubt that 90% of the population has actually considered any of this from an introspective perspective. Asperger's is simultaneously obvious and invisible. And doubly difficult because the rules we are supposed to follow are abstract and unspoken, exactly the kind of ideas with which autism makes people struggle.
I agree the average person responds to unusual behavior with the same innate revulsion we fee to a physical deformity (perhaps to a lesser degree). However I think both revulsions do dissipate with time.
I think what doesn't dissipate, is the distaste for when somebody doesn't follow important and healthy social codes. For example, there's a stereotype of "nerds" pedantically interrupting everybody to correct minor or irrelevant details ("um actually..."). Now, stereotype aside, this type of behavior is genuinely offputting and counterproductive.
To a large extent I think "coolness" is the ability to keep the conversation flowing when a potentially emotional topic gets invoked. The opposite is that person who has a certain trigger-word, where if it ever shows up in passing, derails the whole conversation on a 1-man tirade.
In summary, I find a lot of what makes a good conversational isn't following arbitrary norms of the era, but a strong empathy/understanding for the emotional effect of every topic and bouncing between those emotional states with grace.
I think the problem is that norms actually encode this information - it's not just empathy and understanding, it's empathy and understanding that is appropriate as per the zeitgeist. The normal range of responses is entirely defined by local culture and not only is this the kind of implicit, abstract set of ideas that autism can make difficult to learn, but this discussion itself is also a social grey area which is only appropriate with a minority of people; and then only if they're already familiar and comfortable with you.
When you lack internal boundaries, it is difficult to navigate those of others when they are not communicated to you explicitly.
The silver lining is that this behavior can be consciously suppressed, if the importance of suppressing this behavior is successfully conveyed to the person doing it. I wish somebody had taught me this lesson when I was younger, it could have saved me a lot of trouble.
Bottling up this urge is difficult though, so I use the internet as an outlet for it, sparing the people in my life I actually care about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_script
I've wondered about whether Asperger's could be considered a learning difficulty related to these in the past, especially having read that chronic anxiety can be approached in that way:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-chronic...
Why would you assume that? While it is theoretical possibility, there are many more other possibilities in play.
It may simply be, that communicating with autistic takes much more effort from neurotypical people, is more frustrating. Eventually they stop trying and putting that effort on. Just as communicating with other is tiring for autistic, except neurotypicals have plenty of neurotypicals around to communicate with.
I dont really want to guess, knowing nothing about parent. But the issues in communication with different functional autistic people I had observed that broke it down where things related to social interactions. For example, inability to imagine yourself in other peoples situation can make autistic look selfish and unfair (when enforcing rules for example). It also makes it hard to impossible to strike compromise as opponents situation is not taken into account by autistic and is perceived as "illogical".
Autistic can be overstepping boundaries without really knowing, making people uncomfortable as they have to defend those boundaries. Can be insulting or controlling without having bad intention, which forces other people to react to it in "defense" or leave for own sanity.
That is pretty much opposite of autism, where the person is using it randomly and often to personal loss.
> If you're wrong, the backlash prevents much damage and everyone learns something "new".
Backslash gets autistic bullied in retaliation. Often by people who perceive autistic to be bully and feel righteous in "self defense".
> In many cases, the boundaries are self-sabotage and immaturity, ie. org silos.
I meant personal boundaries. The set of limits healthy people impose on themselves and the world around them. They define responsibilities, what’s acceptable treatment and what isn’t. How you don't allow others to take advantage of you or manipulate you.
The boundaries are healthy and not immature at all. People who dont have them end up being treated badly and prime target for narcissists and such.
I actually think it goes even beyond feeling to thought as well. We are extremely sensitive to the inner mental lives of others and respond both consciously and unconsciously. It takes a sociopath or an extremely practiced actor to fool us. For the vast number of people, we can read their inner mental states as easily and effortlessly as reading a roadsign, even if they don't want to be read and are trying to hide their true feelings or opinions. Children are especially easy to read, which is why they can't hide anything from their parents.
And since we can almost all do this, many conversations, especially work conversations exhibit a sort of continuous doublespeak where there's what I say and what I mean and I can't tell you what I mean outright since it would be rude or unprofessional but I know you know what I mean.
But when I notice someone on the spectrum, I start speaking explicitly with the understanding that the content of what I say will be much more important then what I'm feeling.
This is so wrong it's hilarious.
Humans are terrible at ascribing meaning to what other people do. It even spawned a saying: "We judge others by what they do; we judge ourselves by what we intend."
As such, we, as humans, generally have zero idea what is going on in someone else's brain when they do something unexpected (it is unexpected after all). An individual has to work very hard to "cut others slack" under most conditions.
Unfortunately, there are quite a few bad social actors nowadays who attempt to take advantage of that, and there don't seem to be quite as many people who will take those bad actors on.
> It even spawned a saying: "We judge others by what they do; we judge ourselves by what we intend."
There is much evidence for an effect like this in social psychology, commonly called the fundamental attribution error.
The thing is, we don't do unexpected things in front of each other all that often. Which is why neurotypical people generally do have a sense for each other's state of mind.
Aspies have trouble with this even in normal situations.
The questions you are asking sort of miss the point, there's plenty of ways people can explain their instinct but at the end of the day it's not really a conscious process. If you don't have the same instincts as some people have, I suppose it would be natural to end up with the questions you do. What's important to remember is that they don't have the answers either.
If you really want an explanation that may or may not be true, in my personal experience I can tell that things are simulated or inauthentic unless (as you say) they're being simulated by an extremely competent actor (in the sense that they are acting). Even with people who act very competently, there are always (at least, I've never met an exception) small indicators over time that feel a little wrong. You can't act 24/7, so the longer people interact with you (if you are acting) the more likely it is they'll see you slip up.
This isn't really a problem, as the experience of getting to know someone naturally tends to lead to you seeing them in an entirely different light. The trick is figuring out when to show some authentic drive of yourself and when to present a socially desirable composite. That trick is something you learn by making a lot of mistakes (or if there's some rule to it, I have no idea what it is). If you don't consciously stop acting at some point and people see through it on their own, then it becomes creepy. The ideal is to head that off and figure out together if you are compatible personality types.
Sometimes novel situations create lags in response time, confusion or time to think about a response. It’s especially hard with very sarcastic people or people who purposefully being assholes.
But how they can they tell the difference? And even if they can how do they know that this isn't also true of everybody else, only that others are superior fakers?
How can they even know that their own responses are authentic? I ask because I'm really not sure about this in my own mind.