I like this approach. “funny meme” aside, I think it is a good way of showing how much a certain language can affect how other people think and feel about a subject. Just read it THAT way and “being neurotypical” suddenly sounds like a disorder that isn’t fully compatible with the public, doesn’t it?
We live in a world that isn’t exactly kind to people on the spectrum. It is loud, flashy, hectic, overwhelming, unrewarding but you’re still expected to work like a cog in a machine, despite having fewer and fewer places where you’d actually “fit in” without grinding gears, and whenever there is some sort of public talk about that topic, it always, always sounds like the affected person is the problem and personally responsible for fixing themselves, when a no small part of “not fitting in” is due to society itself. Maybe a change in language is due to remove that stigma.
I see these as legitimately bad things that people should not do. The fact that society considers this normal is horrible!
What people on the spectrum may not understand is that language is more than just the exchanging of raw information. It’s culture, it’s artistic, and it’s a way to communicate intangible feelings and emotions.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You: “We actually do understand that”
You: proceeds to not understand that
Theres a difference between understanding the concept and understanding what the fuck your boss wants you to do when you have been given a conflicting set of orders and because of liability and politics you will never get an answer on how they want you to thread the line between the two
edit: and because you are autistic and your boss is not, how YOU would prioritize which rules to follow at the expense of ignoring the others is almost CERTAINLY going to be the wrong prioritization
Like other commenters, I also think that most neurodivergent people understand this very well. Their problem arises where they understand it even much further, like seeing the implications of such normalities. For example, that this must be one of the sources of so many misunderstandings between different cultures (and subcultures!). I can not just assume that everyone I meet speaks the same social language that I grew up in.
And is it not rude to assume that everyone’s mind works in the same way … or that others would camouflage in a die-cut way as someone they are not truely; is it not kind of intellectually flat to assume self-similarity, given that this is so obviously not the case – I mean divergent or not, everyone is just so engraved by their past experience that we have no true idea what mental process is going on inside another person unless we get to know them more closely.
e: or put in different words, what to do if the intangible feelings and emotions communicated by someone just don’t match their verbal message? Or worse, what to do when we cearly see someones cognitive dissonance but we are expected to somehow follow that (it’s an illness and following through would be self-denial)?
May read: The Double Empathy Problem;
more on affective vs. cognitive empathy: Lost in Translation: The Social Language Theory of Neurodivergence (part 1); (part 2)
I think they understand that just fine.
That sounds as if a daltonic found it horrible that other people use and enjoy colours he cannot separate. I understand it makes your life harder, but you can’t tell people not to use something that is extremely usefull just because you can’t participate.
“You read into phrases past their actual meanings” “Instead of saying what you think, you expect others to infer it based on subjective social rules”
The main issues is that you have to do that because other people will use double meanings no matter what. For exemple to double cross you regarding something. So you have to be able to read them.
Meanwhile there’s actually an other case when people use double meanings : when they can’t foster the courage to tell you something really important that would change everything, or to which you could react badly. Like that they are in love with you. In that case infered double meanings will allow the other person to react by sending similar double meanings to signify that they are on the same page, creating a much reassuring envirronment to finally confess their feelings.
Our species is insanely bad at finding partner. Like wildly bad.
You’d rather everyone just immediately believed everything anyone else said without any thought into the motivation or intent behind the words?
You literally just did the thing I complained about.
I mean, no, not really. What I said is still a part of what you proposed, just not specifically.
Like you can’t suggest that everyone should jump off a high cliff without also suggesting that everyone should fall to the bottom. You can’t say “I said jump, not fall! You’re reading into my words beyond my intent!”
Have you never encountered symbolism? Poetry? Is your favorite book “See Spot Run” because every statement is entirely literal with no interpretation needed?
If you read the phrase “Upon seeing the knife in the strangers hand, she let out a scream.” would you not infer that “she” is afraid of the knife person, or would you sit there scratching your head wondering “why did she scream? I don’t understand, knives can be used for many purposes.”
Absolutely not. What you said had nothing to do with anything I said. I did not say we should “believe everything everyone says.” That’s not even a part of what I said.
You then proceeded to:
The alternative to “reading into phrases past their actual meanings” is not to “believe everything everyone says.” It’s simply not assuming someone intended to say something completely different than what they actually said, which is what you did.
And the alternative to “expecting others to infer what you think based on subjective social rules” is to just say what you mean in the first place.
See the conflict we’re having right now? We could have avoided this if you simply didn’t read into what I said past the actual meaning.
Ah I see the confusion. You said “reading into phrases past their actual meanings” but defined that as “assuming someone intended to say something completely different than what they actually said.” This is not, in fact. “reading into phrases past their actual meanings” and is, in fact, called “assuming someone is lying”. With that cleared up, I agree with you. People should definitely stop assuming others are lying without a good reason.
You just did it again!!
No, I didn’t! You have no idea what you’re even trying to say! I’m sorry but you’re just incorrect. At no point have I interpreted anything you’ve suggested to mean anything other than exactly that.
Well then, thank God you’re here to tell me what my own words mean.