I'm not on the spectrum, but I was a rebellious kid who didn't like to take shit from teachers. My defiant and sarcastic reactions to accusations were often considered evidence that I'd done wrong when I was innocent.
It's not that lie-spotting heuristics work better for neurotypical people or worse for people on the spectrum. They don't work at all for anyone. We're all in the same boat.
You were rebellious. From the point of view of a common teacher, that means you are not innocent. There is actually a old common saying, when some kid got a beaten, but it later turned out to be not guilty of that ... "well, he deserved it anyway" or "well, then the beating was in advance for something he is about to do" "or some other hidden sin", instead of a apology.
Which means self fulfilling prophecy. Punishing someome for something they didn't do - and for sure there will be reasons later on for things they will have done.
There are still way too many teachers and alike, who think a childs free spirit needs to be broken first, before they can learn something useful.
It is!
But you don't need to break someone, to help them learn it. Breaking people is just the cheapest method.
For instance, it'd be incredibly unfair for me to accuse you of being a jackass for a comment like this, when I know nothing about you... it'd also be equally unfair for me to assume you're an authoritarian... because I don't know anything about you, and therefore have no reason to make such an assumption.
Sort of like the teachers in the prior comments.
I had a time where a group of bullies picked up the innovation of using the school administration to harass. So I found myself in the situation of having chats with the principal a few times a week.
The optimal strategy was to courteously deny and be silent. It works over half the time. I’d also use my time waiting around to “charm” the support staff by being nice to them and making myself useful. Eventually, most disciplinary referrals ended up getting lost, as the secretaries clued up to what was happening.
[1]
10 PRINT "C:\> "
20 READ
30 PRINT "Bad command or file name"
40 GOTO 10We were in the class next door that had one computer and we could hear it go off.
Hilarious hijinks until caught/blabbed on. Serious business afterwards. Teachers are scared shitless of computers even now and ‘hacking’ back then... well, I was waiting for MI6 to come get me.
I was brought in front of the board for expulsion after a litany of these types of things, and questioned about anything and everything for about two hours.
We took the case to the board of education and got copies of all of the board members notes, one of which enraged me then and now.
Scrawled in the margins of this members notes - random physiological and psychological phrases. "R.E.M?" for rapid eye movement, "no empathy", "slouching" etc.
Some armchair psychologist that thinks a kid in a high pressure situation, looking around at a board of nine people, is displaying sociopathic traits. That somehow my seating posture related to my character.
They expelled me, and it was ultimately overturned by the state. Still bothers me that people try to apply these dogshit cues to make real life major decisions.
"Vindictive" and "spiteful" were some other good ones. They'd convinced themselves I was doing it to get them or something. The truth is, I was a bored unstimulated kid and the only consideration they got, was how I could avoid them as much as possible. Absolutely zero interest in sticking it to them or making their lives more difficult.
And they go on believing forever that that weird first random idea they got, was right.
(I might be exaggerating a bit.)
I don't mean to give you grief because I've been in similar situations. But I hope you've learned from it that people will hold you responsible for behaviors they observe, and not for your intentions behind them (e.g. acting sullen because you are actually terrified inside).
Not saying it's easy, especially for a kid, but if you go in front of a panel like that, if you can demonstrate remorse and desire to change, it goes a long way.
It sounds like you're presuming to know more about what happened there than you can. I fully expressed remorse, and explained how in hindsight I understand that what I was doing was disruptive, and that I wouldn't behave that way in the future, etc.
Their rubbish analysis was just that. Also, how is "slouching" a fair thing to observe in analysis? I sit with bad posture. I did then and I do now. It's completely irrelevant.
Oh, I should also point out that by this point I had been clinically diagnosed with ADD - which they expressed, and I'll have to paraphrase as it was about 13-14 years ago, was "made up" and that it couldn't possibly explain my behaviour.
This only furthers the advantage of those most willing and able to lie. Especially so when the system and punishment is arbitrary and capricious rather than rooted in first principles. We should focus on outcomes and shared goals, not easily faked attitudes.
The presence of the word "only" clearly makes an assumption that it is a lie.
I wonder if thinking "I get paid anyway the same each month, what does it matter if they believe me or not" helps (unless one might get fired)