I think the point of the article is to express the ways in which it can feel like those on the spectrum are unwilling to admit they were wrong when it might not be what is happening by providing the perspective of the neurodivergent.

I don't think an article providing a couple examples of how one individual was willing to admit they were wrong is providing much in terms of discussion or new perspectives. "See, I can admit I'm wrong!" would be a pretty shallow way of addressing what could often be a misunderstanding. Instead, the post is attempting to offer some insight into the different opinions people might have about interactions with an autistic and explanations for what is going on behind the scenes.

Yep, I understood that, but I disagree :) But I do realise that that could also have made the article longer and less focused. I think the gain in clarity and context would be worth it, but that is definitely my opinion, and I'm no writer.

Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I think you are right.

For every “you can’t admit you are wrong” discussion, I must have a 1000 discussions where I just go “oh you’re right” and move on. My default operating mode is being wrong and knowing I am, or knowing that alternative approaches are just as valid, or sometimes less valid but still bring value to the table. This was not easily learnt, but it just leads to better engineering so it’s a no brainer. I brush over it in a single sentence, and this is not enough, as evidenced in some comments here.

I had a much longer first draft, much less focused, and edited it down to crystalline precision. The next article I write about the topic, I will chose the other approach, and see how that resonates.

Thanks!

Yeah, the rebuttal to "you never admit that you are wrong" is "here's a bunch of situations where I admitted I was wrong", not "I actually was just never wrong in the first place".