For example, take the DSM5 criteria for ASD, one type of neurodivergence. Here's just a single factor:
Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication. (From https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html)
A formal diagnosis of ASD would involve a number of these factors. As you might imagine, if you stack enough things like that on a person, it'll tend to be noticed, even when they're trying to hide it.
In the context of being mean, upon being told that they were being a jerk, a person with ASD might think "ah shit, not again" or maybe "wait what, no I wasn't, it doesn't make sense that they'd be offended by that" or something along those lines. The nuances of the behavior and the motivations behind it will tend to be a little different than in a 'neurotypical' perceived as being a jerk.
Many people (including myself) have difficulty with certain social cues and expectations. Many of us can be offputting or come off as overly direct or disrespectful. Where we diverge is when and how we address that fact. Do we (only) lash out and expect the world to accommodate our conclusions, or do we (ever or readily) reflect on that conflict and try to live in some kind of shared world?
Obviously what I’m describing is a spectrum, not an absolute. But if you’re trying to understand whether someone on the spectrum is a jerk, your answer is “how much do they use their social faculties to navigate sharing a world?”
Which is pretty much the same measure as anyone not on the spectrum.
It isn't "oh, I don't know how to read a room." Even granting high function, I feel people use autism in the same way as they do OCD; it's not something you use "neurodivergent" with seriously.
Like generally there's a lot of disability chic or identity these days; but moderate autism makes it incredibly hard to act in daily life in the same way moderate OCD does. If it's significant enough, it's not just someone being brisk or unempathetic in the same way OCD doesn't mean being a neat freak.
People who claim to have "moderate OCD" are just people who like things being tidy, and describe it as OCD because they have no understanding of the real, debilitating condition. Describing yourself as "moderately obsessive" makes no sense, and being able to live with the untidiness means you are not compulsively tidying.
A huge part of the problem with mental health problems is people using the terminology as some sort of 'badge of honor', as if it's something cool and trendy to have rather than an illness that can ruin your life. People really need to stop saying they have OCD unless they've been diagnosed by a professional.
And as for "moderately obese"... I wouldn't have previously described myself that way, but I fit it. My doctor tells me I'm medically obese. Nobody looking at me would describe me that way, but they would admit that I'm over-weight. They all say I look fine and don't need to lose more weight, though. If that's not "moderately obese", I don't know what would be.
What the world needs are terms to describe compulsive behavior, succinctly, other than "moderate OCD". I definitely have things that bother me immensely if I don't fix them, but it isn't to the point that I need help with it. I clearly don't have "OCD", but what do I have? There's no word for it.
I've stopped using the term OCD for anything about me, because I know it bothers other people. But I don't get mad at those who continue to use it because there's no proper term, and thus no way to actually correct their behavior. Only to stifle them. And I don't do that to other people.
Obesity is divided into 3 classes: class 1 (low-risk, BMI 30.0 to 34.9), class 2 (moderate-risk, 35.0 to 39.9), class 3 (high risk, 40.0 or higher). Using the term "moderate obesity" for class 2 obesity may not be exactly standard, but it has some logic to it.
> I clearly don't have "OCD", but what do I have? There's no word for it.
Is it possible you have subclinical OCD?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18849913/
(Or maybe subclinical OCPD?)
As for the OCD... Even that description sounds worse than what I have. But the existence of "subclinical OCD" makes me even less worried about people claiming to have "moderate OCD" or something. Not only is it a spectrum, but the experts seem to be fine with using the word to describe people that are almost it, with some qualifying words.
The thing about a spectrum is it makes room for people who, by necessity or will, share the symptomatic experience but lack some of the disabling impact. The benefit of that inclusion is that those people are able to benefit from a diagnosis and relevant treatment even if they’re not in the direst straits.
In my own experience, this meant that I was able to begin treatment for ADHD even though I’d had over a decade as a successful adult. And that treatment saved my life. Sure, I made it that far with what I could scrap together in myself and my luck in life. But when that wasn’t enough, my “moderate” case revealed its severity. If I’d had access to that diagnosis and care earlier it probably wouldn’t have ever been so severe.
> Keys explicitly judged BMI as appropriate for population studies and inappropriate for individual evaluation. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it has come to be widely used for preliminary diagnoses. [1]
Some people are actually diagnosed with "moderate OCD" though. Some psychiatrists like to use descriptors like "mild" or "moderate" or "severe" when they make a diagnosis. The DSM-5 doesn't include those terms as specifiers, but that doesn't stop some clinicians from using them anyway. (Clinicians vary widely in how strictly they adhere to the DSM-5.)
Also, while the DSM-5 doesn't include the concept of "mild"/"moderate"/"severe" OCD, some rating scales used clinically in diagnosing OCD do include such a distinction. Y-BOCS (Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale) scores are divided into four ranges – subclinical, mild, moderate, severe, extreme. A person with an OCD diagnosis who scores in the moderate range of the Y-BOCS will quite possibly be told they have "moderate OCD".
The DSM-5 does include three specifiers of level of insight for OCD: "good or fair insight" ("The individual recognizes that obsessive-compulsive disorder beliefs are definitely or probably not true or that they may or may not be true"), "poor insight" ("The individual thinks obsessive-compulsive disorder beliefs are probably true"), "absent insight/delusional beliefs" ("The individual is completely convinced that obsessive-compulsive disorder beliefs are true"). It is an oversimplification to equate that to "mild"/"moderate"/"severe", but some people will do it anyway.
Clinicians need to convey to patients (and their family members and others) the severity of the individual's condition in terms which lay people will readily understand. Terms such as "mild","moderate","severe", despite their limitations, meet that need.
> People really need to stop saying they have OCD unless they've been diagnosed by a professional.
Self-diagnosis is always a dangerous thing, but I think it includes a big spectrum of behaviours, from "I saw a TV show once about X and now I think I've got it" through to "I've read the DSM-5 and dozens of books and papers on X and I think I've got it". In both cases, the person could well be wrong, but arguably they have a significantly greater chance of being right in the second case than in the first. (And a lot of the time when people who engage in self-diagnosis get it wrong, they actually do end up diagnosed with something, just not the thing they expected.)
Speaking somewhat personally – I've listened to school teachers and psychologists tell me all these things our son does which are "symptoms of autism" and I'm sitting there the whole time thinking to myself "what's 'autistic' about that, I did that too as a child, I even still do that as an adult?" That's not saying that I do or don't have ASD – I've never sought a formal assessment of it for myself, maybe one day I shall, maybe I never will – but my suspicions that I might have ASD probably have somewhat more weight to them than "oh I saw a TV show about it once and now I think I have it".
It's hard to live with moderate asperger syndrome, because you typically look and act normal, but are actually positioned in uncanny valley of behaviour. You try to act normally, but your responses are off enough to be mistranslated by others. You are expected to behave normally but you are missing those expectations. People who are visibly disadvantaged have lower expectations on them from the start.
>it's not something you use "neurodivergent" with seriously.
what do you use neurodivergent with seriously. I would think not being able to read a room is a big problem?
>Like generally there's a lot of disability chic or identity these days; but moderate autism makes it incredibly hard to act in daily life in the same way moderate OCD does.
is it incredibly hard to act in daily life with moderate autism, or is having moderate autism and complaining about its difficulties an example of disability chic or identity? It seems like you want to say it is the latter, but phrasing like 'incredibly hard' make it seem like you couldn't possible mean that.
Having moderate forms of autism is incredibly hard, yes. Severe forms you would need a caregiver and medication for the rest of your life. It isn't just socially awkward behavior or insensitivity, and there's a temptation to medicalize or self-diagnose behavior that way.
Disability chic is medicalizing things that more or less are normal behavior. I feel like with autism people try to make an identity or medicalize some normal traits. I keep using OCD, mostly because I do worry I suffer from it. I am aware of the irony, but i do this more because i suffered from signficant abnormal traits like checking compulsions; hitting a pothole and immediately being afraid i ran someone over, etc. Worrying that you didn't lock a door despite tugging on the doorknob 6 times before you left.I have it light because I don't need drugs to manage it and I'm able to function somewhat in life (though as an adult i worry how much of who I am was because of it)
There really isn't overlap with anything else; like people misuse OCD to mean "neat freak" or forgetful or what have you. Autism though people seem to have some of that; I mean, my customer's son has to be told to not get in people's spaces while many non autistic people may stand too close. It's harder to untangle.
First, I relate to your feelings of minimizing your own experiences, and your impulse to minimize others’. That’s not just how I felt before I was ready to get help, it’s something so ingrained in me that it’s a repetitive conversation with my family and loved ones since I have.
Second and more importantly, if you do have those symptoms I sincerely hope you’ll consider talking to a professional. The worst thing that happens is you’ll waste a couple hours. The next worst thing that can happen is you might make some sense of why your brain is the way it is, and it might lead to some peace. It’s all up from there.
That said, while I’m not an expert on the topic, some of the way you responded is right in line with what I’ve seen people with diagnoses express as harmful. I’m sure you mean well, but ASD presents in a lot of ways. Many which are not nearly so debilitating as what you describe, or more to the point, not debilitating in the same ways. The fact that it’s such a common misconception that it is so debilitating across the board is stigmatic.
I haven’t experienced this disability chic, what I’ve seen is the opposite: people afraid to find out because it may be socially limiting beyond their natural limits.
It’s possible that what you see here is a reflection of high incidence of what you call “high function” but nevertheless also a high incidence of ASD in tech communities.
I hope you’ll consider the possibility. I hope you’ll also consider that it took me a full day to work up the nerve to address your response, and honestly it’s such a sensitive subject that I’m probably going to have to stop looking at my phone for the night because I can’t bear whatever potential negative reaction might be coming. But I couldn’t bear leaving it unanswered even more.
My suspicion is that the reason she was often complaining about her heart was that she in part knew that there was no need to be worried about it.
Openly choosing to recognize the existence of a dragon in your life require either bravery, desperation, or finding a costume to put your cat.
I am not specifically replying to you, I was just stimulated by the topic, but I find it ironic that given a debilitating condition being outspoken about it could maean being of two very different end of a spectrum of experiences.
Are you familiar with the concept of broad autism phenotype (BAP)? A person who has more autistic traits than the average person, but not enough traits (or are not sufficiently impaired by those traits) for an ASD diagnosis, has BAP. Someone who thinks they–or someone else–has ASD in the absence of a formal diagnosis–if they are wrong about the person having ASD, they probably are actually picking up on the person's BAP traits.
And how does the experience of BAP and ASD differ? Well, they are just different positions on a continuum–people with BAP have similar experiences to people with ASD, albeit with less intensity and/or less impairment. And the line between them is unclear and subjective, different clinicians draw it in different places–whether you end up with the diagnosis can depend on factors that have nothing to do with you personally, such as the diagnostic practices and clinical culture of the clinicians you end up seeing. (And the line is moving – a lot of people diagnosed with ASD today would not have received that diagnosis if they'd presented with the same symptoms 20 or 30 years ago.)
Stressful environments often exacerbate people's autistic traits and interfere with their own strategies for managing them. A series of stressful life events can lead a person to a situation in which they end up being diagnosed, whereas if their life had taken a more leisurely turn they might never have been diagnosed – even if their innate traits are exactly the same in the two scenarios. One of the key criteria for diagnosing ASD (criterion D) is clinically significant dysfunction, and dysfunction is highly environmentally determined (unsupportive environments result in far more dysfunction than supportive ones given the same underlying condition)
> If it's significant enough, it's not just someone being brisk or unempathetic in the same way OCD doesn't mean being a neat freak.
BAP is subclinical ASD. Subclinical OCD is also a subject of study, although unlike BAP it doesn't have a distinctive name. A lot of "neat freak" people may actually have subclinical OCD. And subclinical OCD and clinical OCD are on a continuum with each other, with a subjective and varying dividing line between them, just as subclinical and clinical ASD are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537443
I mean, there is no "neat freak" trait; that's something people who don't have OCD use because they think that's part of what it is. It's more intrusive thoughts about contamination, and there isn't a spectrum of those traits. Like you can't really "train" yourself to not be contaminated, in the way autism people talk about training to deal with social conditions. Trying to argue against it reinforces the behavior. It happens despite you knowing its totally irrational
I think I get BAP if you mean "the condition isn't severe enough to significantly impair your life," but I can see similarities between my checking behavior and people suffering the same but worse; I'm just fortunate enough that it doens't occur frequently. The talk about autism though is a different kind of talk; the moderate or severe sufferers are different.
Like the person I mention never got better or could use coping stuff; he would if anything just end up unable to talk possibly because he was medicated sometimes. I understand I'm not a clinician, but there's a lot of "spectrum" behavior in things now; you have gender spectrums, sexual spectrums (asexual, demisexual, sapiosexual), and I'm not sure the concepts aren't just medicalizing normal variation or individual temperament. I wish i could be doing this for me, if anything.
There is a continuum of intrusive thoughts – the continuum of frequency and intensity of those thoughts, the continuum of how easy it is to move on from them, etc. And a single individual can move back and forward along that continuum over time, in response to life events, development/maturity/ageing, and other factors. We say they have OCD if (a) they have enough frequency/intensity/etc of those intrusive thoughts, (b) the intrusive thoughts are sufficiently impairing in their everyday life, (c) there isn't some other disorder which better explains those intrusive thoughts. We draw a line on the continuum, and say this side is "OCD" (or maybe some other disorder), and the other side isn't, but that line is inevitably a subjective clinical judgement call
> The talk about autism though is a different kind of talk; the moderate or severe sufferers are different.
You mention "moderate" and "severe" – what about "mild ASD"? I guess what used to be called Aspergers syndrome?
> Like the person I mention never got better or could use coping stuff
You can't draw a lot of conclusions from a single person. You can't say that people with milder, less noticeable symptoms don't exist.
I've spent a lifetime learning a rulebook by trial and error that everyone else just seems to know.
It's absolutely maddening then the rules suddenly change for no discernible reason, often with little warning and grave consequences with no second chances for screwing it up.
It's why what people call 'cancel culture' scares the snot out of me, I'm deathly afraid I'm gonna say or do the wrong thing, and not really have a way to respond to it, and pay some sort of heavy toll. I'm okay with free speech having consequences (its the only way to ensure we can actually have speech mostly free of government regulation). I just wish those consequences were not applied for things deemed ex post facto (often by decades) to be violations of social norms.
But there is a certain amount of mental exhaustion from having to filter everything I say outside of some very very narrow circles, lest I say something that could be deemed in the future to be 'problematic'.
The larger issue I see, is our current focus on peoples actions in the past is it leaves no room for personal growth or to change views, it if anything hardens people views and perspectives - if someone gets no credit for getting better about something (like use of pronouns, or whatever else), there is no incentive to improve.
"A bit. If your goal is to look thinner I'd try that other thing instead."
Is this a neurotypical person being a butt, or an autistic person trying to be helpful?
Answer: yes.
So I would never answer this question to someone who didn't love me. And even then, they get offended, even though they ask.
Instead, my answer is, "Nope, not gonna answer that." And then they get mad anyhow.
So the comment above about the "trap" is correct. That person started the rudeness, but they won't take the heat for it.
But I'd say suggestion and (to use the southern term) social grace is one of the most nuanced and culture-heavy forms of communication. In that it assumes a lot of shared culture between you and the other party.
As least down here, with > stranger, < intimate partner, you'd get a "No" in all cases, but the words attached to the no would also differ almost 100% of the time in the "No, but..." case.
And I imagine most of those cues completely disappear cross-culturally.
If they simply disappeared, it would be alright. The problem is when they have the exact opposite meaning.
One example is US-ian unnaturally white teeth, that supposedly look OK there, but are somewhat creepy in the rest of the world. I mean, human teeth are not supposed to be white, but a range of very light ivory tones.
Granted! But also when they have no meaning, or are just... odd (e.g. "That's weird, how do they want me to respond to that reply they just made?")
White teeth are totally creepy here too. If you ask any US dentist, they'll tell you to match eye white (varies from individual to individual) to look natural.
But, then, there's a few "beautiful people" states where norms are so out of whack they don't realize how weird it is.
So even if we suppose that cancel culture somehow has 0 false positives (which I highly doubt), it's likely that many more neurodivergent assholes will be "caught" than neurotypical ones. Which feels functionally very similar to profiling IMO, and practically means we are probably not catching the more "dangerous" assholes. Because it's a lot easier to ignore an asshole view if you're aware of it.
I'm sure you also know of times - I know I do for myself - of times you've knowingly and purposively been an arse.
There's the biggest difference.
Sometimes people think I'm being awkward or uncomfortable, but mostly I'm tripping over myself trying (and failing) to find the right things to say. People expect that you can read them, and read the situation in real time. I can't (although usually I can gather how it's all gone wrong once the moment has passed -- a double-edged sword.)
A lot of "non-autistic assholes" may have other diagnosable conditions, for example narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Are NPD or ASPD "neurodiverse" or "neurodivergent"? They are probably partially genetic, just as ASD is probably partially genetic.
What makes those diagnoses "neurodivergent" and the others not? Why aren't other diagnoses "neurodivergent" too? How exactly do we define "neurodivergent"? (And why is that the right definition to use?)
> They don’t have much overlap with personality disorders (which do have a lot of overlap among that category).
There is a lot of overlap between the disruptive behaviour disorders (DBDs) – oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD) – and ADHD; so much so that ADHD is sometimes considered a DBD along with ODD and CD. And there is a clear connection between CD in children and adolescents and ASPD in adults – indeed, a child or adolescent with CD can follow one of two trajectories, either their conduct problems resolve with maturity and they become law-abiding pro-social adults, or else the child/adolescent diagnosis of CD evolves into the adult diagnosis of ASPD. So there is definitely a connection between ASPD and ADHD. A child with ADHD (even without comorbid CD) has an increased risk of developing ASPD as an adult – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24284138/
Some researchers consider ASPD to be a neurodevelopmental disorder – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29401045/ – which is the same category that ASD and ADHD (and sometimes also OCD) are put in.
There is also a lot of overlap between ADHD and BPD (Borderline personality disorder) – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739390/
There's also overlap between ASD and BPD – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5590952/
Intent is the easier one to understand. Neurodivergent often don't act with the same intent that someone being an asshole does. Two people tell you that you shouldn't be eating that cookie. One is intending to be mean an to hurt you. The other cares about you and means the message in the best interest of your health, not realizing it will hurt.
With time and some prompting they can be led to understand how the message would be interpreted and realize it is hurt and stop, but it happens much slower and is often too little too late.
Justification is the harder to understand or empathize with possibility. Due to the previous issue impacting every area of life, often resulting in a significant decrease in quality of life and a significant increase in emotional pain, some will lower the extent they empathize with others. It is harder to explain because people think of their own times being hurt by others and think how they had the option to just do better than was done to them and rise above, not conceptualizing what qualitative differences occur when a pain goes from a short term event to a life long occurrence.
One further problem is that justification is only sometimes deemed appropriate by society. The differences in what are deemed appropriate differ strongly enough I'm hesitant to list examples because many will consider just making the comparison as a very asshole move. I am not at all clear if this consideration is in good faith or not.
I have found the difference to be willingness to reflect or to what extent they are trying.
A lot of my socially clueless friends (can't speak for if they lie on the spectrum) are delighted when I offer them a new set of rules that were previously invisible, instead of insulting them for not 'getting it'. They love being told what the lines between mean&blunt or curt&concise are. They can work around context well too, as long as it is explicitly laid out to them.
Mean people (adults) are usually one of:
1. Neuro-diverse people who don't know they are mean
2. People with insecurities they are trying to work on
3. People with insecurities they refuse to acknowledge
#3 is not worth it. #2 can seek help using traditional means. #1 needs some training wheels and personalized instruction to work their way up to socially well adjusted. Think of it as a person with a learning disability.
Neurodivergent/autistic people are usually unaware that what they say could cause offense: they lack either the emotional capacity to feel those emotions themselves, or the ability to empathize and predict that other people will feel them.
Assholes know, they just care about other things more. They might throw their coworker under the bus for a promotion. Or they'll sexually harass women because 1 out of 10 times, it gets them laid. Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. Or they stop paying rent because there's an eviction moratorium, even though they could, because it saves them money and their landlord has no way to enforce agreements anyway. Or they sell drugs to children because they want money. Or they cut people down because it makes them feel big in the moment.
This doesn't seem like particularly assholeish behaviour.
Caring more about being perceived as right (even when erroneously), sure, but if the person is actually right of course they should care more about that than diplomacy. Surely we have enough examples demonstrating the pitfalls of fostering a culture where the truth can be ignored if you don't like it.
I'm particularly partial to being right on the Internet rather than diplomatic, so I'll cop to being an asshole. But I wanted to make the point that different people have vastly different definitions of "asshole". Some people will recognize themselves in the examples; others will recognize the person they can't stand. Sometimes those people are one and the same.
It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Failure to do so (often from a perspective that being right means one need not worry about diplomacy) is assholery.
Note that this is also somewhat self fulfilling. If you do end up being wrong, you can not admit that, as it would make your behavior inexcusable, so even when incorrect, you feel the need to fight and bully the people correcting you, in hopes that they go away.
Oh absolutely, but those are both totally compatible with someone who "care[s] more about being right than being diplomatic". It's if they didn't care about being diplomatic at all that they'd be an asshole.
I perceived that specific quote as referring explicitly to situations where the two are mutually exclusive, in which case I believe that being right is by far the better option in most scenarios.
I've been trying to come up with examples where that might happen and the best one I can think of is someone's young child asked you if Santa was real, but even then I'm about 50/50 on whether anyone in my social circles would care. I know at least a few who'd be pretty disgusted if I didn't tell the truth in that situation.
Now I recognise that this almost certainly is not representative of the general populace, but this is also one specific example (and the most egregious one I could come up with), whereas there's entire history courses written on the catastrophes that occur when people choose diplomacy over the right thing.
Playing into the Santa Claus lie with your friend's kid is absolutely inconsequential to you, but it could mean a lot to that kid (and to the parents) to keep that lie alive a bit longer. (And if telling the truth to that kid, against what the parents would wish, is that important to you, I'd suggest you re-examine your priorities.)
Context matters! Sometimes being right is essential to making some important thing work out. But hey, sometimes being diplomatic (and allowing the other person to be wrong) also can be essential to make some important thing work out. The big thing is knowing the difference and acting appropriately, which is sometimes hard to do in the moment.
But if we're talking about a kid believing in Santa Claus, and the parents actually do care that you keep up the fantasy, you actually are an asshole if you tell the truth, no question. If the parents really don't care, sure, go nuts... though if they didn't care, I'd expect the kid to already know the truth anyway.
Why is the desire of the parents more important than the desire of the child? Remember that we're talking about a scenario where the child is explicitly asking. They want you to tell the truth, their parents want you to perpetuate a lie. It's an easy choice for me to make.
You may not see the useful function of the Santa Claus fantasy[0], but it is not your (or my) place to decide that for a child or their parents.
Let's try with something a bit less trivial, something that my young nephew had to deal with not too long ago: death. One day kid realizes that grandpa hasn't visited in a long while, and ask parent what's up. Parents don't think kid is emotionally ready to have the death talk. So they spin a story about grandpa having to move away, and how grandpa loves his grandkid very much, but won't be able to visit anymore. And let's say you're over visiting your friend, and their kid walks up to you and says "my grandpa had to move far away and I miss him... do you know why he can't visit me?" You know that your friend's father died recently. If your answer isn't "well, what did your parents say?" followed by affirming whatever the answer is, you've probably done a bit of harm to that child's emotional well being, and likely have introduced some trust issues between the child and parents. What right do you have to do that? I would not be surprised if your friend stops inviting you over after that.
Don't get me wrong; I think many decisions parents make for their kids probably aren't the best ones. There's no authoritative parenting handbook, and most parents do the best they can. But it is not anyone else's place to "correct" someone's parenting decisions, outside of active harm and neglect. (And no, telling a lie about Santa Claus or death does not clear that bar.)
[0] Personally I'm not a big fan of it myself; while Santa Claus can be a useful tool to help a child's imagination develop, I really dislike how tied Christmas has become to consumer culture and materialism.
I couldn't help but laugh at this.
If you want to avoid trust issues, maybe don't lie to people. Seems like an easier solution than lying to them and calling other people assholes if they don't perpetuate your lies.
> What right do you have to do that?
There is a conversation occurring between two people. One of them asks a question. Both parties in this conversation want the question to be answered truthfully.
You are saying that I don't have the right to do so because someone who is not involved in said conversation wants me to lie instead. This is insane.
I find that very hard to believe. To be correct you not only need to be able to say carefully thought-out, nuanced things; you also need to be able to speculate wildly, to take half-baked ideas where they might lead. But the half-baked version of some important truths probably sounds exactly like the most offensively ignorant notions you could think of.
And good people are the ones who won't punish you for that. I'd agree an entire social group being this open minded seems unlikely in 2021, but GP may just have really effective filter bubble.
Versus most of the time, people who we don't know well do things for reasons that are inscrutable to us.
And we're left to judge solely on that basis of that information.
If you're not invested in someone enough to understand them, why should you be invested in them enough to try to destroy them?
Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood.
And that's a pretty important distinction.
Some jerk named Twitter is my understanding.
> Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood.
I think you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. This sorts itself out with any kind of long-term relationship because then you get to know them well enough to tell whether or not they're an ass.
But the first time you meet someone, it's prisoner's dilemma. Everybody defaulting to defect because you're afraid the other guy might be doing the same thing is not going to end well.
See also superrationality etc.:
Both examples - really all of the examples other than "selling drugs to children", which is from Breaking Bad - are taken from real-world conversations with people that basically said "What a jerk!" The person complaining about their non-paying tenant basically accepts sexual harassment as how the world works. The person (people really, it's a composite of a half-dozen or so conversations) complaining about the sexual harassers would likely find nothing wrong with a tenant skipping out on rent. Both are women, though a generation apart.
"/!\ I do not mean to liken sexual harassment to rent default /!\".
It's most clearly visible in griefers in online games, because the social consequences of griefing are minimal. Some people are just plain nasty.
But I don't think that's what's happening here. And I think it's ridiculous that it's been interpreted this way.
on edit: explanatory, not recommending
They do have a straight news org that isn't terrible, but they blur the line and fail to disclose when you're watching opinion and when you're watching news.
This is precisely what people with autism tend to be like because of the difficulty people with autism have empathizing with others and seeing things from other people's points of view.
The asshole is thoughtless because they believe others to be less important than themselves. The person with autism is (may be) thoughtless because their brain isn't wired to be thoughtful. Or they actually are thoughtful, but don't know how to express it in a way that others can understand.
The idea that autistic people are assholes is an artifact of every other gamer on the internet self diagnosing themselves with aspergers in the 00s and then using that as an excuse to be un-introspectively cruel to each other.
If I appear scrupulously kind to you, it is because I am compensating. If I appear emotionally intelligent to you, it is because I had to learn what is literally instinct to most people. At least for me, I am able to compensate effectively and pass in most social situations, but it is exhausting.
When I read RMS's writing that lead to the conflict in question, it struck me as an entirely reasonable piece. When I read the responses to it, the message I got, loud and clear, was "my thought patterns are not welcome here"
that you choose to be kind does not make you less kind. that your emotional intelligence was learned rather than instinctual does not make it less real. that you willingly exhaust yourself exercising those skills is absolutely the opposite of being an asshole.
> that your emotional intelligence was learned rather than instinctual does not make it less real.
That is a rather technical statement, that would be dependent on exactly what you mean by "emotional intelligence". Relying on general intelligence to do tasks that most people accomplish with more specialized brain power is certainly different, regardless of if you want to classify it as emotional intelligence or not.
Sometimes I resent the patchy compensation mechanisms I’ve built up. It’s almost impossible to explain the frustration, the exhaustion, of choosing to be kind in a fashion that differs from my own understanding of kindness.
I am inherently kind, and I don’t have to choose that. I am confident in that statement. What I do have to force is mapping my default expression of kindness to the norms that friends, family, and acquaintances will understand. This is so important, because failing to do so means pushing all those people away. I feel like I can never let my guard down.
Then I remember to stop talking about myself; cue flash of (rational) anxiety; catch myself from a mental break; go and take a 50 minute long shower.
I’m so thankful for the people that give me a chance to reset, learn, and grow from these iterations.
I have a generic model and I develop ones for individual people too, what one key find normal another will find distressing - and none of it makes any sense to me at all.
What about all the other people who were excluded from the movement because RMS was an ass? A common human fallacy is to overindex on the contributions of assholes, while ignoring the potential contributions of those who were excluded by their actions.
My subjective evaluation, having met RMS in person and looked at the consistent patterns in his behavior, is that he is "below replacement value" -- he has overall caused far more harm than the average person in his position would have.
In this case, though we actually could, if we wanted to, find some data. We could go around and ask a bunch of people if they wanted to get involved with the FSF but didn't, and see how many of those people were turned off by RMS. Another option could be to look at the demographics of people getting involved in the FSF before and after RMS had been outsted, and compare.
None of that is perfect, and especially the second option would only give you a correlation, not necessarily causation. But, again, our data will always be incomplete, and you just have to go with what your experience tells you will or won't happen.
>>thoughtless / mean / an ass
>This is precisely what people with autism tend to be
It's not a special preoperty of spectrum people that they have to learn what neuro-whatsit folks know "instinctively"; we all have to learn these things. Socialisation is learned, not instinctive. You don't have to have a disorder to have poor social skills.
It could be that your poor social skills are the result of inadequate experience or training; it might be that you don't care much (not because you don't care about others, but just because the approval of others doesn't matter much to you, and expending energy on gaining that approval is wasted energy).
Not needing the approval of others isn't a disease; it's a mark of psychological health.