If someone says autistic people have to adjust

Post Reply New Topic

In my case I feel offended when people say I don't feel emotions, or can't feel love, and so forth. If I don't have emotions, why am I so miserable about being single and lonely?! And how can they claim to know what I feel better than I know it myself? Do they think I have multiple personalities or something?

However, if they tell me that yes I do have emotions, I just can't understand other people's emotions, then I would agree. In fact, the above paragraph shows that I don't understand other people's emotions: if I understood them, I wouldn't be so puzzled as to why they say what they say.

What I am trying to say is that each person should be entitled to say something about their own emotions, but not about the other person's emotions. Now, when you say you have emotions, you are making a claim about your own emotions, and you are entitled to that. On the other hand, when you say you understand someone else's emotions, you are making a claim about that other person's emotions: you are saying that the other person's emotions match your understanding of it, but how do you know thats the case?

You are also saying that you understand other person's emotions once they are explained to you. But that still means that you have "more difficulty" understanding other person's emotions than most people, since most people don't need that explanation and you do. Now, the expression "don't understand" sometimes means "have more difficulty understanding". For example, you can say about the bad student that "they don't understand math"; but in fact if you sit down and explain it to them they will understand -- and you know it firsthand since you were firsthand involved in the teaching process -- but you might still say they "don't understand" math in reference to the fact that it took longer for them to understand than most people. But I can see how the literal meaning of "don't understand" means don't understand, period, for the rest of your life. Thats why, when you took it literally like that, you said it was wrong. But the point is that they didn't mean it literally, they meant it in a way I explained a bit earlier. And taking things literally is a known aspie trait, which is one reason why your boss might have said you misunderstood because you are an aspie.

As far as your discussion about social status, I agree it has something to do with people viewing aspies as having low social status -- which is precisely what I am so angry about. But I am surprised as to why you were saying something along the lines of being confused of expectations due to low social status AS OPPOSED TO being upset why you have low social status on the first place. In my case its very much the latter. For example, when I go to Bible study, I don't really go there to learn, but rather to socialize, since its one of the few opportunities to socialize that I have (now don't get me wrong, I very much AM interested in the Bible, as evident from the amount of time I studied it by myself; all I am saying is that I don't really think that going to Bible study is any more conductive to learning than reading Bible by myself, when I can choose the part of the Bible that I want, and do it at the time most convenient for me) so when people ignore some of the comments "about the Bible" that I make, my immediate concern is that it implies that I have low social status. Thats it. I can live with the fact that they disagree with what to focus on in the Bible, lots of people have lots of different opinions about it. But the fact that it implies that I have a low social status, thats what I can't deal with.

Now, going back to the issue of "learning to adjust", the social status thing would explain the difference between the situations you are talking about and the situations I am talking about. In your case, you are asked "to" adjust because of your low social status, in my case I am asked "not to" adjust because of low social status. So, no wonder, you don't like being asked to adjust and I don't like being asked not to adjust: we both don't like having low social status! Now that I think of it, I can think of an example where I been asked to adjust due to low social status -- and I expressly refused to adjust because I didn't want to accept low social status. In particular, in response to my complaint why don't people approach me to talk to me, I was told two things: one is that they don't approach me because of various things I do that make me unlikable, but the other thing is why don't I approach them myself. So, putting those two statements together, it sounds like my having to be the one to approach them indicates a low social status -- and thats precisely why I continue to refuse to take an advice of having to approach people, since I don't want to accept that my social status is low. On the other hand, if we take a candle example, its the opposite: if the girl were to blow off the candle, that would make my social status low, since it would basically indicate that I am so disabled that I can't even handle the candle smell. Thats why in this case, for the sake of protecting my social status, I had to insist that she puts the candle back on, so that I can prove to her I am normal.

However, the two things about social status where I disagree with NT-s is that

1. NT-s are a lot more concerned about other people's social status, whereas I am more concerned about my own.
2. NT-s try to keep the status quo whereas I am trying to change the social status things I disagree with.

On the surface, with point 1, it sounds like I just admitted that I am more selfish. Well being selfish isn't the worst thing there is out there. A far worse thing than selfish is being malicious, which is what part 2 is all about: like your boss was "malicious" in a sense that she WANTED your social status to be at the bottom. So that is obviously a lot worse than the situation if your boss was just concerned about her own social status and thats it. I mean, isn't it better if someone simply doesn't care about your social status than if they expressly want to keep it low?

And as far as status quo part, it is outright confusing. I remember a while ago someone did cut and paste from "what do you think" website where people could leave their comments anonymuous. And I remember someone saying "such and such is interested in me but I don't want to date them because they are popular and I am a loser". My immediate question is: wouldn't that be the exact reason they *SHOULD* date that person, so that they can "undo" their own "loser" status? In fact, as a presumed loser, they only get such an opportunity once in a few years, so why don't they want to grab that opportunity to stop being a loser?! Why are they passing it by because they want to stay a loser?! Won't they regret it once they come to their senses?!

So you see, I am thinking about social status too; but, unlike them, I don't want to keep status quo. I want to actually undo my loser-hood. But others aren't letting me do that since they are trying to keep the status quo and I strongly disagree with their attitude.

Oh by the way, speaking of meltdowns, I read the other day autistics have a meltdown when they are overloaded and can't process so much information. I never have a meltdowns over this, not even once. However, what I *DO* have meltdowns over, in fact quite often, is when people treat me as low social status. And no, it has nothing to do with "too much information to process", it is a simple fact that I have low social status, I can't accept it, and it triggers my meltdown.

P.S. Can you give me the exact reference to Dr Phill episode of a husband expecting Dr Phill to be mad at his wife because of his dream? I would just be really curious to watch it on youtube.

I am really enjoying this conversation MB. I am glad we are having it. I looked to see if I could find that episode of DR Phil but it was so long ago that I don't remember the people's names. I tried to do a generic search looking for episodes where a man was dreaming about his wife dating her ex but I did not see it. I will keep looking. If I find it I will post the link for you.

Lots of people are misinformed and think that Autistic people don't have or don't feel emotions. And actually there are some Autistic people who don't. I know one of them. But most of us do and we feel them at depths and levels that nts can't even begin to understand. I have times where I have physically collapsed from the intensity of the emotions that I feel.

As far as understanding other people's thoughts or emotions, I understand what you are saying. But for me it is slightly different. I can understand other people's thoughts and emotions very well. I can empathize with them in incredibly deep ways. What is sometimes difficult for me is recognizing emotions or unspoken thoughts. Sometimes I have trouble recognizing and labeling my own emotions during the moment. It takes me a while and then after the moment I can recognize and analyze them. I can recognize emotions in myself and in other people if they are bold and strong. But if they are subtle, I cannot. But if someone tells me what he or she is feeling or thinking, I have no problem understanding those things and empathizing. And often times I understand those things so deeply and so profoundly that the person is blown away by my ability to understand and to empathize.

But I very much understand if you cannot understand other people's emotions. Many Autistic people have trouble with that. And that is OK. The people you spend time with just need to be aware of that so that they can tell you what they are feeling so that you can respect their feelings. They cannot expect you to understand if they do not tell you.

When I meet people, the very first thing I tell them is that I have some difficulty recognizing faces so every time they see me, they might need to tell me again who they are. That is just the way it is. I can't do anything about that. They just have to forgive me and tell me who they are if I don't recognize them. There is nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong with you if you need people to tell you what they are feeling in order for you to know.

Now you mentioned that the author meant something different from the literal words he wrote and that I should have understood that. But this is very important. Words mean what they mean. If you are writing a book with definitions of conditions for lawyers to use in court in order to determine the status of someone's benefits or whatever, which will really affect their ability to survive, you better get the words right. I am being denied disability benefits which I desperately need and deserve because of small technicalities like that which are being exploited. A small technicality like how you word things in a book that is supposed to be used to provide definitions and descriptions of disabilities and conditions for lawyers can literally make the difference in a client's ability to get the help he needs or to not get it. I am being denied disability because the judges are saying that I am not disabled. The reason is because of definitions like that one. If you don't fit the exact wording that they are using to describe your condition, you get denied even if the definition being used is imprecise and inaccurate. People love to say that we should be able to interpret the words loosely and understand the meanings behind them but the words really do matter. In my case, inexact words have become a matter of survival. The judges will use the literal meanings of the words to deny me disability. It is very important that these definitions be literally accurate.

I was once told by a psychiatrist that I cannot be Autistic because I have emotions and I understand them. If that psychiatrist had been allowed to diagnose me, I would not have been diagnosed. When the people who are in charge of making decisions about other people's lives are reading descriptions about the conditions, the descriptions better be right.

And you can't have it both ways. You can't tell some people that they have to interpret words loosely or they are wrong and then have another person say that the words have to be interpreted literally in order to make decisions that affect the lives of others. If we are going to be held accountable by how we use words, everyone should be held to the same standard. I am constantly being told that I am being held accountable for something when the literal words I used did not go in someone else's favor. I am held to those literal words and no one gives me any grace about that. But when I interpret words literally and hold nts to them, I get told that I should not be interpreting words literally and that I am wrong for doing so and that I should understand what they meant rather than what they said. Well if that is true, why is that same grace never extended to me when I say something? But somehow we are magically supposed to understand when words are to be understood literally and when they are not. I am sorry, I am Aspie, I am not always capable of doing that.

I agree with you about how the only person who knows your emotions best is you and that everyone knows their own emotions best. And it is up to us to tell people what we feel and think and other people should believe us when we tell them. And everyone should respect what others say about what they feel and think. We should not have to guess what others are feeling and thinking because often times we guess wrong. And others should not make snap judgment about us either. That is not fair. But if someone tells me what she is feeling, for example, if she tells me that she is depressed, I understand depression very very well. I can completely relate to her, I can understand what she is going through and I can empathize with her. I also deal with severe depression so I understand it first hand. Now I might not understand every detail of her particular situation which is causing her to feel what she feels, but I definitely understand that emotion. And the way that I can know if my understanding matches what she feels is that when we are talking and I explain my understanding, she tells me if I have understood her or not. I can tell by how she responds. I can also tell when people have understood me or when they have not by how they respond to me. Now if she does not respond, then I cannot tell. But if she responds honestly, then I can.

So the difficulty I have and that many Autistics have, is the difficulty in recognizing emotions, not in understanding them although there are some Autistics who truly do not understand them. Recognizing and understanding mean two very different things.

I am not upset or angry about having low social status. The reason is that I have no social awareness. Social status means nothing to me. That would be like being upset that people don't choose to serve me coffee. I hate coffee. It means nothing to me. I could care less if people don't want to serve it to me. Social status does not even cross my radar. It's not part of my world. It has no importance to me whatsoever. I would talk the exact same way to the Queen of England as I would to a homeless woman on the street dressed in rags. I would put George and Charlotte in time out just as easily as I would any other children. So I have no concern whatsoever where people see me on the social ladder because it has no bearing on how I feel about myself.

The reason I bring it up is because I have no social awareness, people use that to bully me and to try to socially control me. What upsets me and makes me angry is the bullying and social power play games. Those are wrong and evil in my book. That is what makes me angry. Most of the time I am not even aware that these things are even going on while they are happening because I have no social awareness. It is only later when other people explain to me that I was socially bullied or socially controlled that I understand what really happened. People using their self imposed social status to bully others is wrong and that is what offends me. People can be as socially high or low as they want and I really don't care one single little bit. But they should not use social position to hurt others. That is the problem. I am very much like a little tiny child in that regard. Toddlers don't care what your social status is, they treat you the same as anyone else. They like or dislike you because of your character and the type of person you are, not because of your social position. Sound familiar? We should all become like little children.

My not wanting to adjust has nothing to do with whether I dislike being in low social status. I don't care about that. I don't like when people challenge the facts and logicality of something simply because they consider themselves socially higher than I am. Facts are facts, logic is logic, you don't get to change that just because you have money or whatever you think you have. That is the issue with me. I have a problem when people argue that the facts about something don't mean anything because they want the thing to fit in their own little emotional and social box to make them feel good about themselves. I want the facts to have importance and to be respected not to be thrown out every time they have a whim or their emotions change.

I think my boss can be very difficult even though she does not realize that she is. She is very unaware of how she treats people sometimes. And she is extremely socially and emotionally driven. There are times when you absolutely cannot reason with her because of this. It makes it very difficult to be around her sometimes.

I am not following your logic on the whole loser dating thing. You will have to explain that to me again. If you want to undo your loserhood, you will have to stop worrying about social status and just work on specific things in your life to help you change who you are. If you want help with that I am sure that we will be able to do our best here to help you. But you will have to do it step by step with specific things. One thing I might do if I were you is to start with your room. How you keep your personal space has a lot to do with how you organize your mind and cleaning and organizing your room might give you a nice starting point to be able to make other changes in your life. That could be the beginning of changing from loser to something better.

My meltdowns are from overload: sensory overload, emotional overload, information overload, or social overload. I get very angry when I feel disrespected and I can be very expressive about my anger but I never get meltdowns from feeling disrespected. I find it very interesting that this triggers meltdowns for you. I wonder if many other people have that as well. I find that really fascinating. I am always fascinated by how our brains respond to things differently.

Like I said, this is a great conversation. Thank you. I am really enjoying talking to you about this.

I am glad to hear this. I am enjoying this conversation too.



Thanks. I know things can be hard to find sometimes, but thanks for trying.



Well, if you say NT-s can't feel emotions on the level you are feeling, you are making the same mistake just in the opposite direction. I am sure both aspies and NT-s feel emotions; the reason you collapse is more than likely due to not being able to process them properly; but the fact that NT-s process them better doesn't mean they don't feel.

I agree, however, that NT-s are wrong in assuming aspies don't feel emotions. Especially when aspies claim that they do, why do NT-s insist that they don't? Do they assume aspies have multiple personalities, or what?



First of all, the word "understand" has different meanings. For example, you can say you don't understand someone in the context of their accent being difficult to understand and, in this case, you are simply asking them to repeat what they just said. So if the word "understand" encompasses both understanding the concept and hearing through the accent, I am sure it covers "recongizing" as well.

On a different note, are you sure you are able to empathize with ALL emotions as opposed to just SOME of them? I mean, it sounded like you admitted that you can't emphasize with the things about social status, but thats also a type of emotion.



And this brings me to the following conversation:

ME: The only reason I didn't do what you wanted me to is that I didni't undersatnd thats what you wanted me to do. Now that I finally understood it, I would like a second chance to do it.

THEM: But you clearly don't want to do it

ME: Whatever discomfort I might experience due to doing it isn't very important. I can adjust.

THEM: No, don't adjust, you have to be who you are

ME: But you are only telling me not to adjust because I didn't adjust back when you wanted me to. And the reason I didn't adjust is simply that I didn't understand what you were saying; so why can't I adjust now that I finally understand?

THEM: I am done talking about it.

Now you see why I am so eager to adjust? I want to prove them wrong.



I also have difficulty recognizing faces. But when, in response to hi, I ask people to remind me of who they are, they assume I don't want to talk. In reality I do want to talk: in fact thats the reason I want them to remind me of who they are so that I can get enough context to be able to talk! But they assume I don't want to.



They probably didn't realize that you had a REASON to care about those details (the one you just explained); you should have explained to them this reason and then they would have reacted better.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my ex-s over facebook. She broke up with me few years ago over the fact that I argued too much, and she marreid someone shortly after breaking up with me. Anyway, one of the things that she said all the way back then is that she questioned my ability to love. Since it went unresolved, I brought this up quite recently (in context of other girls making similar assumption) and I asked her "if I am presumably incapable of love, why would I be arguing" and she said that she thought I was arguing just to argue. Then I said "what if I were to tell you that the reason I was arguing is that I had hurt feelings" and then she said that she would have responded much better in this case. So then I asked her "well, isn't it evident that if I argue then its the hurt feelings that drive me" and she said "apparently not". That was a huge surprise to me.

Now, it wasn't just her. There are lots of other people that seem to assume I am just dwelling on details simply because Asperger programs me to dwell on details, and they have no idea that I do so for emotional reasons. So maybe with you it is similar: just like with me they don't know I am driven by the need for validation, with you they don't know that you are driven by the need of receiving the services which you wouldn't get due to those details in writing. So maybe you have to actually say that is what you are concerned about before going into those details and then they will see the reason why they should follow your explanation.

I think this also relates to the assertion that autistics don't have feelings. Probably if NT were to say exact same thing you or me are saying, they wouldn't need to state that they have a reason to worry about it: people will simply know that there must be one. But if an aspie does it, then they don't know there is a reason: they think aspies do it just for the sake of doing it. And thats why for the aspie its so important to say that they do it due to specific reason. I find it unfair.



But then what do you base your happiness on? In my case I wanted to be a theoretical physicist since I was little. This had two components: finding out something new and status that I get out of it -- and those two things are separate, and I want each one of them independently. Now, in your case you are not a scientist, so you aren't accomplishing anything in realm of knowledge. So what is left? Status. But you don't care about your social status either. So what else do you base your happiness on? Just going around daily routine of eating 3 times a day and sleeping? That sounds quite boring. Maybe thats part of why you have a depression?



I think we might be talking about different types of meltdowns. One thing I recently read is that the meltdowns that autistics have are neurological things they can't control. In my case the meltdowns is something I "can" control. Like one example of a meltdown would be my going through facebook contacts to see whom should I send "f**k you" to, who knows me well enough to get upset and, at the same time, it wont' cost me too much if they block me; in case of most recent such attempts I ended up not sending it to anyone since I "ran out" of people that fall within this category. So as you see its psychological rather than neurological. Basically, I want to hurt someone because someone else hurt me, and I want to hurt someone "safe".

Captcha is not allowing me to post my response

I am glad to hear this. I am enjoying this conversation too.



Thanks. I know things can be hard to find sometimes, but thanks for trying.





Well, if you say NT-s can't feel emotions on the level you are feeling, you are making the same mistake just in the opposite direction. I am sure both aspies and NT-s feel emotions; the reason you collapse is more than likely due to not being able to process them properly; but the fact that NT-s process them better doesn't mean they don't feel.






I agree, however, that NT-s are wrong in assuming aspies don't feel emotions. Especially when aspies claim that they do, why do NT-s insist that they don't? Do they assume aspies have multiple personalities, or what?

Last edited by skibum on 29 Apr 2018, 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think captcha does that when my response is long. I am breaking it up

First of all, the word "understand" has different meanings. For example, you can say you don't understand someone in the context of their accent being difficult to understand and, in this case, you are simply asking them to repeat what they just said. So if the word "understand" encompasses both understanding the concept and hearing through the accent, I am sure it covers "recongizing" as well.




On a different note, are you sure you are able to empathize with ALL emotions as opposed to just SOME of them? I mean, it sounded like you admitted that you can't emphasize with the things about social status, but thats also a type of emotion.





And this brings me to the following conversation:

ME: The only reason I didn't do what you wanted me to is that I didni't undersatnd thats what you wanted me to do. Now that I finally understood it, I would like a second chance to do it.

THEM: But you clearly don't want to do it

ME: Whatever discomfort I might experience due to doing it isn't very important. I can adjust.

THEM: No, don't adjust, you have to be who you are

ME: But you are only telling me not to adjust because I didn't adjust back when you wanted me to. And the reason I didn't adjust is simply that I didn't understand what you were saying; so why can't I adjust now that I finally understand?

THEM: I am done talking about it.

Now you see why I am so eager to adjust? I want to prove them wrong.







I also have difficulty recognizing faces. But when, in response to hi, I ask people to remind me of who they are, they assume I don't want to talk. In reality I do want to talk: in fact thats the reason I want them to remind me of who they are so that I can get enough context to be able to talk! But they assume I don't want to.





They probably didn't realize that you had a REASON to care about those details (the one you just explained); you should have explained to them this reason and then they would have reacted better.

[/quote]

Last edited by skibum on 29 Apr 2018, 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Minorities have to adapt to majorities to survive would it be fair or not.

It is not a matter of how you feel about this but a matter of survival.

Now, it wasn't just her. There are lots of other people that seem to assume I am just dwelling on details simply because Asperger programs me to dwell on details, and they have no idea that I do so for emotional reasons. So maybe with you it is similar: just like with me they don't know I am driven by the need for validation, with you they don't know that you are driven by the need of receiving the services which you wouldn't get due to those details in writing. So maybe you have to actually say that is what you are concerned about before going into those details and then they will see the reason why they should follow your explanation.



I think this also relates to the assertion that autistics don't have feelings. Probably if NT were to say exact same thing you or me are saying, they wouldn't need to state that they have a reason to worry about it: people will simply know that there must be one. But if an aspie does it, then they don't know there is a reason: they think aspies do it just for the sake of doing it. And thats why for the aspie its so important to say that they do it due to specific reason. I find it unfair.







But then what do you base your happiness on? In my case I wanted to be a theoretical physicist since I was little. This had two components: finding out something new and status that I get out of it -- and those two things are separate, and I want each one of them independently. Now, in your case you are not a scientist, so you aren't accomplishing anything in realm of knowledge. So what is left? Status. But you don't care about your social status either. So what else do you base your happiness on? Just going around daily routine of eating 3 times a day and sleeping? That sounds quite boring. Maybe thats part of why you have a depression?







I think we might be talking about different types of meltdowns. One thing I recently read is that the meltdowns that autistics have are neurological things they can't control. In my case the meltdowns is something I "can" control. Like one example of a meltdown would be my going through facebook contacts to see whom should I send "f**k you" to, who knows me well enough to get upset and, at the same time, it wont' cost me too much if they block me; in case of most recent such attempts I ended up not sending it to anyone since I "ran out" of people that fall within this category. So as you see its psychological rather than neurological. Basically, I want to hurt someone because someone else hurt me, and I want to hurt someone "safe".[/quote]

Last edited by skibum on 29 Apr 2018, 3:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

That may be true but people should still be able to express how they feel about it especially when people from the majority keep telling us all the time that we have to adjust. If they insist on telling me that I have to adjust, I will continue to express how I feel about it to them. We all know that we have to adjust. We spend our entire lives adjusting every single day. The point is not that we have to, the point is that it is infuriating that we are constantly being told that we have to.

It depends upon what you mean by it.

I have said many times on WP things like "were the minority. The 1.5 percent. Theyre the majority. So don't expect them to change to accomidate you. We hafta to accomodate them. It aint fair, but that's the way it is."

That's my old folks advice to youngsters about specific day to day stuff, one on one, about how to survive in the world. Practical day to day stuff.

But that's not a moral judgement.

If you ask me what I think society should do in the coming great sweeps of history then I would say that I think society should accomodate autistics to a greater degree, and am optimistic that in the future society will do that (and autistics will be more able to contribute to society as a result).

But again there is a limit. We are just a small minority.