 
Support Wrong Planet!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
timeisdead
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 15, 2008
Posts: 871
Location: Nowhere
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| LabPet wrote: | | TheSpecialKid wrote: | I don't think it's only NTs... I do it too, I hate when other people don't say their things directly, and I'm very much into problem solving, however I don't go to straight to my parents and say: "Hey I think i have AS."
I'm actually in pain, by not being able to tell them. Therefore I gave them clues, and either they understood it, or else they found out though my cousin. |
I think I'd be leery too! Because you just cannot know how they'll take that information that is directly conveyed. Communication is hard and there's just no right way. One of our triads of impairment: Communication. And Aspies can be honest to a fault. The dichotomy is that it's one of our best traits too! And why I admire other Autists/AS; our direct honest approach.
(...even if that means tellling her that she does in fact look fat in that skirt)  |
I can definitely relate. They ask for "truth" but only want their egos stroked. Because so many people cry over insignificant comments, so many are afraid to be direct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
PlatedDrake
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 26, 2009
Age: 29
Posts: 811
Location: Piedmont Region, NC, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| timeisdead wrote: | | PlatedDrake wrote: | | Its something of a defense mechanism, at least from some observations. If some topic is considered taboo, "double talk" was used to get around it (ie, medieval era people trying to follow Catholicism, but hoping to keep secret their skepticism). Directness throughout history was always treated with one thing: immediate punishment for speaking out. Heh, if you think about it, one can only wonder how many of those on the spectrum died in the past for stating fact over faith. So lying, subtlety, deception, etc are a 1500+ year old mechanism for humans to defend themselves against society . . . ironic. |
My question is why would a person in authority use such indirectness to the people he or she is in charge of? What exactly has that person got to lose? If you're in charge, you have nothing to fear for doing so. In such a situation, one is equipped to handle almost any adverse reactions that may occur. |
Back in the day, and still true now, if you are in a position of power (the group Alpha concept), the one thing that gives you power are the numbers behind you. You lose that, you're an outcast . . . the lone wolf, or worse, the heretic and blasphemer. Also, its in human nature to listen to one who takes authority (were some tests on this that had proven some most disturbing results), but a leader has no idea how intelligent his/her entourage is. Its the intelligent group members that are viewed as a threat and deception is used to keep that person/those people from usurping the opinions of the others (this can be seen in the series Survivor, showing this tendency to be instinctual under certain/most circumstances). Ironically, its because you're in a position of power that you do ALL YOU CAN TO KEEP IT, OUT OF FEAR OF LOSING IT.
_________________
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
-Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
PlatedDrake
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 26, 2009
Age: 29
Posts: 811
Location: Piedmont Region, NC, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spokane_Girl wrote: | | timeisdead wrote: | | PlatedDrake wrote: | | Its something of a defense mechanism, at least from some observations. If some topic is considered taboo, "double talk" was used to get around it (ie, medieval era people trying to follow Catholicism, but hoping to keep secret their skepticism). Directness throughout history was always treated with one thing: immediate punishment for speaking out. Heh, if you think about it, one can only wonder how many of those on the spectrum died in the past for stating fact over faith. So lying, subtlety, deception, etc are a 1500+ year old mechanism for humans to defend themselves against society . . . ironic. |
My question is why would a person in authority use such indirectness to the people he or she is in charge of? What exactly has that person got to lose? If you're in charge, you have nothing to fear for doing so. In such a situation, one is equipped to handle almost any adverse reactions that may occur. |
The bosses I have had were pretty direct. They always told us what we be doing wrong on the job and give us reminders. I don't think they have hid anything from us but my boss I had in Montana, got afraid to tell me things because I get too sensitive and think I was a bad worker. So she call my mother so she can talk to me about my behavior at work without getting me upset. But I've learned to accept the criticism now and not get so upset and hurt. |
Hmm, if a boss is direct, it means one of two things: that person thinks you're intelligent and values your contribution, or is direct to you because he thinks you are not as intelligent as he is and is talking down to you (may or may not pick up on that). Also, with respect to the latter, he may view you as a more intelligent "threat" and talks directly to mock you and hope the more negative emotions will keep you from standing up to him. I'll admit, the latter aspect has happened to me more than the former (both cases of the latter). In the end, many people are jackasses and theyre the ones who think they deserve a position higher on the corporate food chain.
_________________
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
-Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
Polgara
Sea Gull
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 238
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have to think it's related to why we always wrap a gift before presenting it. The gift is concealed but is known to be there. The wrapping shows a desire to please and the receiver, while unwrapping, can formulate a response if necessary. Even if not wrapped it will often be concealed behind the back before being revealed, or given in a nice bag. A gift given "naked" may be seen as uncouth or even rude. I think the hints and circumlocution so much appreciated by NTs sort of "wrap" the intended meaning in a pleasing presentation. Just a thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LabPet
alchemist
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Alaska
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perfect metaphor, Polgara!
Peculiar that, as I understand, wedding proposal diamond rings are placed in a fancy velvet gift box with a pretty bow....but maybe it's Zircon. Aspies give pure diamonds in the raw, and love - not just the wedding proposal.
_________________
same nightmare, different nap
Lab Pet, therapist slayer
Lab Pet's video: Autism is Synonymous with Science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYelVlA7kDw |
|
| Back to top |
|
granatelli
Toucan
Joined: Apr 01, 2009
Posts: 273
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
NT's (and I'm one) are often not 100% direct/blunt/honest because we don't want to offend the person we are talking to. We don't want to talk to them as though they were a child.
They say that something like 1 in 150 people is autistic. That means if someone spoke to a group with the blunt directness that aspies prefer 149 people would feel "talked down" to and one person (the aspie) would be greatful that the speaker spelled everything out in great, clinical detail.
We are not often as direct because we are trying to be diplomatic. By sort of "massaging" the point you want to get across it makes it easier for the other person to accept your point of view because they don't feel that they have to be on the defensive. I guess what I mean is by saying something nicely, or with a little empathy for the way the other person may feel about it, you can get your point across, accomplish what you want to accomplish and not made an enemy out of the person. That makes the listener more receptive to hearing what you have to say & there is less chance for hard feelings.
In the end it's a win/win situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LabPet
alchemist
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Alaska
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| granatelli wrote: | NT's (and I'm one) are often not 100% direct/blunt/honest because we don't want to offend the person we are talking to. We don't want to talk to them as though they were a child.
They say that something like 1 in 150 people is autistic. That means if someone spoke to a group with the blunt directness that aspies prefer 149 people would feel "talked down" to and one person (the aspie) would be greatful that the speaker spelled everything out in great, clinical detail.
We are not often as direct because we are trying to be diplomatic. By sort of "massaging" the point you want to get across it makes it easier for the other person to accept your point of view because they don't feel that they have to be on the defensive. I guess what I mean is by saying something nicely, or with a little empathy for the way the other person may feel about it, you can get your point across, accomplish what you want to accomplish and not made an enemy out of the person. That makes the listener more receptive to hearing what you have to say & there is less chance for hard feelings.
In the end it's a win/win situation. |
Thank you for revealing - really. And in a direct manner 
Seriously, I know Autists/AS individuals are so often misinterpreted and this is a key reason as to why. Although we may not mean, at all, to offend, that 'Aspie' bluntness is interpreted differently by one with another way of thinking.
I really hope I don't offend...and would never purposely 'talk down' to another (ok, unless they needed it.....  ) but you stated that very well - thank you.
Often I actually understate (maybe most often) but the urgency of the message is lost since maybe I don't seem (?) upset/hurt? Unsure. I do get along well with most all - and I like most.
For one example, if all right to say: Approximately 1 year ago I severely burnt my Right arm in a laboratory accident (0 pH HNO3 at 16 Molar - Nitric acid) and had 3rd & 2nd degree burns splattered on my R forearm. I was taken quickly to clinic, bandaged, etc. I'm all right. But at that time, not long after accident, I wrote/said to one of my favorite professors that I hurt my arm in lab (I was teaching lab session at the time). He didn't say much at all (something like "oh, that's too bad") - I dismissed this and my R arm was covered with long sleeves so he didn't see the bandages from elbow to wrist with the 2nd skin underneath. I'm permanently scarred.
Then, later that day, another from my own laboratory (grad student, like myself) DID tell him I was REALLY hurt - the whole gory event.
I had just assumed he knew "I'm hurt" meant "I'm hurt." No...until that other student said he didn't get it. Then, he said, "You didn't tell me you hurt yourself like that!!"
Did I do this wrong? Maybe I should have been more dramatic? Sigh.
granatelli, would you have known?
_________________
same nightmare, different nap
Lab Pet, therapist slayer
Lab Pet's video: Autism is Synonymous with Science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYelVlA7kDw |
|
| Back to top |
|
Woodpecker
I am not a jigsaw ! I am a free man !
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Age: 36
Posts: 1510
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well I find NTs can be quite confusing, they do seem to be hard to read. I sinerely wish that I could cook up something about the size of a torch which I could used to measure from a few feet away a series of parameters regarding their current mood. This dream tool would be like a geiger counter but it would measure dishonesty (white lies and black lies measured at once), how friendly they are, their general happyness, how awake they are, how stressed are they and a series of other parameters.
They sometimes say things which suggest to me that they have a problem which needs to be solved, when they just want to moan. Also sometimes when they have a problem which needs to be solved they do not say clearly that they have a problem which needs a solution. My world view works in the following way, if a problem pops up we need to consider and then maybe apply a solution to the problem.
Identify the problem, work out how to solve it, apply solution, everyone becomes more happy.
_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity  I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Janissy
Phoenix
Joined: May 06, 2009
Age: 43
Posts: 1450
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PlatedDrake wrote: | | Its something of a defense mechanism, at least from some observations. If some topic is considered taboo, "double talk" was used to get around it (ie, medieval era people trying to follow Catholicism, but hoping to keep secret their skepticism). Directness throughout history was always treated with one thing: immediate punishment for speaking out. Heh, if you think about it, one can only wonder how many of those on the spectrum died in the past for stating fact over faith. So lying, subtlety, deception, etc are a 1500+ year old mechanism for humans to defend themselves against society . . . ironic. |
Darwin was right. Any trait that keeps you alive long enough to reproduce is more likely to get passed on. Honsety to the wrong person can get you killed. It has been true throughout history. It's still true today. In some countries, you will be killed by the government. I shudder to think what happens to a North Korean Aspie who is unable to be dishonest about Kim Jong Il. I would say that this mechanism is older than a mere 1500 years because long before people were being put to death for criticizing Catholicism (or just being unable to lie convincingly about it), there were kings, warlords, tribal leaders etc. that needed to be lied to (or their subordinates needed to be lied to) in order to avoid death.
So I totally agree. If lying, subtlety, deception etc. can keep people alive longer, it will tend to get passed on as it has been. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vexcalibur
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 18, 2008
Posts: 1154
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hypocrisy is the base of all social relationships. Remove that and nobody would mate yet along reproduce. In order to make humanity survive, we need to be hypocrites and not ever say that your SO's mother could lose a couple of pounds.
_________________
How dare we be different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Janissy
Phoenix
Joined: May 06, 2009
Age: 43
Posts: 1450
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LabPet wrote: | [
For one example, if all right to say: Approximately 1 year ago I severely burnt my Right arm in a laboratory accident (0 pH HNO3 at 16 Molar - Nitric acid) and had 3rd & 2nd degree burns splattered on my R forearm. I was taken quickly to clinic, bandaged, etc. I'm all right. But at that time, not long after accident, I wrote/said to one of my favorite professors that I hurt my arm in lab (I was teaching lab session at the time). He didn't say much at all (something like "oh, that's too bad") - I dismissed this and my R arm was covered with long sleeves so he didn't see the bandages from elbow to wrist with the 2nd skin underneath. I'm permanently scarred.
Then, later that day, another from my own laboratory (grad student, like myself) DID tell him I was REALLY hurt - the whole gory event.
I had just assumed he knew "I'm hurt" meant "I'm hurt." No...until that other student said he didn't get it. Then, he said, "You didn't tell me you hurt yourself like that!!"
Did I do this wrong? Maybe I should have been more dramatic? Sigh.
granatelli, would you have known? |
I wouldn't say you did it wrong, since nothing happened. I'll just explain the usual protocol. Usually if you say you have been hurt but give no further details, people will assume the injury was very minor. Providing details allows the other person to provide accomodations or alter their behaviour in some way until you have healed. What accomodations or behaviour alterations might have been needed for a serious arm burn? People would need to not touch your arm until it healed. They would need to be extra careful not to brush against it accidentally. They would need to not grab, hold, pat or in any way touch your arm until it healed. You didn't get re-injured so clearly nobody did any of those things. Since they know you, they likely know you don't want your arm grabbed or held patted whether it is injured or not. A more touchy-feely NT person would be re-injured when others grabbed her arm as they had always done if she didn't describe the injury.
So that is why the explicit-details-of-serious-injury protocol is in place. It prevents other people from accidentally re-injuring you and causes them to accomodate you. A possible accomodation besides not touching your arm would also be that others would lift all heavy things for you until your arm was healed in case there was muscle damage. If you don't tell other people the details of the serious injury, that implies it is minor enough that it doesn't need accomodations or for anybody to do things temporarily differently around you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
