AS and miscommunication

Post Reply New Topic

Now at this point, I notice that there is commonly miscommunication in debates especially because people either cannot explain otherwise, selective reading, brief reading, cognitive bias or lack of comprehension to what the other is writing.

I for example get a lot of miscommunication because I emphasize on words others would normally see as synonymous coming to something different being understood than meant. Others often see things in a black and white perspective when I normally do not represent either extreme.

But not to offend anybody, but a lot of people here tend to seem dickish when there are others with more severe ASD that were able to learn to articulate themselves better to not come across as dickish. It almost seems like many people here have NPD as a comorbid.

Can you provide an example?
Keep in mind two things in regards to temperance - the written word can often lack inflection that may make exactly the same thing, being spoken, seem perfectly polite whereas being written, maybe abrasive. And two - many autistic people DO come across as "dickish," but mean absolutely nothing nasty by it. I'd say that's a fairly commonly accepted trait of AS folk.

Well avoiding sounding dickish in written language can be learned, even though I myself sometimes slip up when it comes to it.

And to the example. Sometimes it can be this ridiculous:

Me: I find epistemology to be highly debatable as I disagree with absolutes and do not see objective truth to be a valid element.

Other: How could you? I feel offended that you do not believe in objective truths!

I mean sometimes people are pretty selfish.

Hmm, well speaking to another autistic, that might just be the start of a good debate. May sound harsh, but may indeed just be someone reacting with a "wow! That's so different! Let's discuss!" response.
However some insight may be gained by a conversation I referenced somewhere else here that I had with a therapist attempting to explain to me what an argument is for. He claimed that arguments are often the result of a comment being taken by someone else as a personal attack on them by their association with x beliefs. People apparently often don't receive information as just information - it's related to a complex polarized self-referencing identity structure. You expressing a point of view contrary to their own is seen not as an opportunity to expose oneself to a new idea, but as a personal insult, which triggers a defensive mechanism from the ego concept.
I asked what such a response is for, and he argued that it didn't have a functional purpose, as it is purely an emotional reaction.
Interpret that perspective how you will - I'm still unsure if he was right or not.

...Ho .

It is probably also the problem that I dont understand what ego or emotion is good for in the first place. Ego hinders impartiality and emotion hinders both impartiality and clear thinking in my opinion. In a sense I may understand why I may be difficult for people, but I dont understand why people are that way.

I think it's important to remember that this site isn't restrictive as to who may join. There are quite a few different neurological conditions inhabiting this site. For some of those conditions, part of the condition is being relentlessly aggressive towards others especially when anyone says anything that differs from their perception of reality.

Don't take it personal, I try not to. They just don't operate the same way you do, they don't have the depth to be able to even perceive what it's like to. A suggestion; look for the ones that are at the same level. They are fairly easy to spot as they are the ones that get the brunt of the backlash from the others.

I sometimes have communication problems with the more emotional people on WP.
There are also people who have fits if you don't agree with them and support their views.

I know. (See Moderater Abuse thread. That person seemed to report someone just because that person disagreed.)