wispfox | [brains, AS]

Entry tags:

neurologic.autism spectrum

[brains, AS]

Something which has been percolating at the back of my mind for a while decided to come to the forefront and be writable last night. Good thing I'd brought the laptop home and hadn't sent it in for service yet, 'cause otherwise the post would have had to wait until I had net access from home. :)

I am known to be very poor at that thing known as 'common sense', which appears to cover an _amazing_ array of things, from basics physics knowledge, to where privacy boundaries should be, to knowing when and how to offer help/knowledge to people and when not, to knowing what kinds of things are likely to require advance permission and what not, to... and the list continues.

For me, most of the things which bite me are interpersonal related, but _all_ - every single one - relate to a lack of deep down understanding of a topic. It seems, very strongly, to be yet another symptom of my difficulties with extrapolating information from lots of small, but apparently related, bits of information. Or, put another way, to get from details to generalities, or from vaguely related experiences to approximating something that I have not yet experienced. Possibly also relates to my difficulty with getting from book learning to useful, experiential knowledge (this last amuses me, considering that I'm also known to have trouble separating something I've read from something I've seen from something I've experienced, if it's far enough back in the past).

Considering how easily and frequently this can be a problem, I find it somewhat odd that I always feel _terrible_ (generally, all out of proportion to the actual result of the lapse) when I realize that I've had a failure in my ability to realize that there was something that I "should" have known to do or not to do (perhaps, a failure in my ability to empathize in the non-woowoo kind of way most people mean by that word), based on the available information, but which lack of personal comprehension caused to not occur to me, so the mental connection was not made. Generally feels like I should have tried harder, or something. Even though the actual problem is that I didn't realize there was anything to be trying to _do_ or think of.

The fun thing, of course, with the fact that I feel so terrible, and the fact that I've dealt with it my entire life (but much more often as a kid), is that my first instinct (which I'm reasonably good at fighting at this point) is to want to hide from my mistake, no matter the actual import of it. This can, and has, meant that I quite literally have forgotten doing something in this category, where I was terrified of the reaction when whatever occurred was found out (I don't know why things not occurring to me causes that reaction in me, but it does), then caused myself to forget it. All unconsciously. Thankfully, the last time this happened was also the first time I was made consciously aware of this happening, and I've worked _hard_ on it since. Still have the initial wanting to hide from it reaction, but I refuse to let myself forget it or deny it. May or may not always succeed in not denying it, depending on my general mental health, but I think it's been a while since that reaction escaped past my mental filters, at this point.

Interestingly, it's generally the case that the major problem cases are things that I did that I should have asked about first, but the problem with my very first reaction to that knowledge is that it's not possible or sane or healthy to want to ask about anything that I do, ever, before I do it, if it has any possibility of affecting other people. (may as well just stop trying to interact with people, at that point!)

This whole problem with understanding how others might react to things does make me wonder how much of the sense I get of people, and how well I can read someone, really relates to how frequently their reactions and beliefs and such are sufficiently similar to my own. Perhaps I pick up on that at a really deep level (since I can get a sense of a person, and be able to read them reasonably well, nearly instantly, although that's rare). Or, alternatively, how likely they are to adjust well to the fact that I _will_ do stupid things, and it's not intentional, nor is there much that can be done to avoid it. (and, in this latter case, how good a sense I have of _that_, so that I really believe it)

I know that my own difficulties with all this is at least part of why I tend toward not expecting people to think of things which affect me if they can't understand it. Things just won't stick, or won't occur to me (or both). This is also part of why I tend to be so very forgiving; I tend to wait to find out the intent, rather than just looking at my interpretation of what has occurred, because I know how easily and frequently I can make 'I simply do not understand this' mistakes, so why wouldn't everyone else?

I also have trouble with avoiding doing this kind of thing in the future, since the only way I have to avoid it is to commit that small subset of things to memory, which is not sustainable (since it's case-by-case, rather than an overall understanding of a generality), and not very helpful when my memory isn't very good, and when the problem is that something didn't occur to me in the first place. I try to set flags, but that is hardly perfect.

That which tends to bite me the hardest, and upset me the most, is when I should have thought to ask people that I care about and/or respect about something relating to them, which later ends up upsetting them in any way. This is probably why I try to tend toward too much information when things in my head affect other people vs too little. But, of course, the problem comes up when it doesn't occur to me that something might be an issue. So it's not in my head long enough to consider that it might need to be worded before acted upon. Or at all.

I also have to wonder if this all is why I cope so poorly with people whose tempers seem to be very close to the surface. I have no reason to believe that they won't randomly flip out at me, and no reason to believe that I won't inadvertently cause flipouts on a regular basis. I _know_ I can be frustrating, partly because I frustrate _myself_ often enough, especially if dealing with people I can't really comprehend.

*wry* Sometimes people tell me that I tend too strongly toward people who are similar to me in thinking. I am _so_ not surprised! I can't _deal_ with people whose thinking is too far from my own, not really. Not effectively. Is almost certainly part of why I could never be in a position in which I have to deal with politics of a situation; I don't understand it. Not really.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It is because you have these things in your head and because of the way in which you handle them that I consider you so very trustworthy.

(And, hell,

reverend_dave once said that I was the only person he knew who couldn't even play trust games with a wall, because I always turn around to make sure it hasn't moved before I lean back.)

It is because you have these things in your head and because of the way in which you handle them that I consider you so very trustworthy.

You... I... what? I am simultaneously able to comprehend that and very confused by that concept. :)

only person he knew who couldn't even play trust games with a wall, because I always turn around to make sure it hasn't moved before I lean back

Huh! Fascinating!

Kinda like The Wizard of Oz (the book, not the movie): those who lack natural ability X, but are aware they lack it and so really think about it and work hard to compensate for their lack of it, end up having perhaps more of it than those who had it naturally. And even if not, you can point out to them when they're missing it and they'll understand and try to fix it and not take it as an insult.

those who lack natural ability X, but are aware they lack it and so really think about it and work hard to compensate for their lack of it, end up having perhaps more of it than those who had it naturally.

...

Yes. At some level, I wonder how much of this is true for me, especially when I contemplate those people who I _do_ have a good sense of (for example). Because, in large part, I appear to have a _startlingly_ good sense of people, when I have one at all, rather than the apparently more common but overall less accurate body language stuff that most people have.

And even if not, you can point out to them when they're missing it and they'll understand and try to fix it and not take it as an insult.

Also, yes. Took me a long time to understand that not being easily offended was an unusual thing, both in terms of my interactions with other people, and in terms of my sometimes being a lot easier for other people to deal with. Still confuse me that it's unusual, but I'm glad that I have it.

I love this analogy.

Well, look at it this way: I always know that you're trying. I know I can trust your words and intention. I know that you'll handle things going wrong in a way that makes sense to me, with discussion and analysis instead of the typical ingrained reactions that other people have. Everything else is pretty incidental to me, anyways.

I always know that you're trying. I know I can trust your words and intention. I know that you'll handle things going wrong in a way that makes sense to me, with discussion and analysis instead of the typical ingrained reactions that other people have.

*slow nod* Yeah.

I think this is why at some level I got it, actually. But putting into other words helped with the simultaneous confusion. :)

A Fair Witness, eh?

From the opposite side, I'm just the wrong person to play trust games with because I might not know what is going on. I seem to've missed some rather significant social education in regards to many things including this.
When I was first dating my beta-test wife, she did the fallback thing. I thought she was stepping backwards and obligingly moved out of her way. So, she fell to the floor. First thing out of my mouth, "Why did you do that?"

I seem to've missed some rather significant social education in regards to many things including this.

[aol] Me, too! [/aol]

Wow. Y'know, I can see myself doing that too. And I certainly don't trust others not to be equally unaware of what I expect of them, at least when I really think about it.

Granted, I didn't use to think about it so much, and so I used to take it for granted that people would know what they "ought to do" a lot more often. I recall a fight with a friend a few years back during which I stomped off into another room with a cryptic parting shot and then got even more upset because he was supposed to have followed me.

My ex and I got in so much mutual trouble from expecting mutual mind-reading that I have a knee-jerk reaction to it, now, and will sometimes just refuse to acknowledge when someone I'm close to seems to be either expecting me to read their mind, or trying to read mine. I'll just go on trudging through, and wait for them to get more verbal clarity at me.

Hmmm. As opposed to confronting them and asking for more clarity?

It depends on the person and the context. I've had so many important conversations derail, in past relationships, when we've stopped to meta-argue in mid-discussion, when the conversation is about how we're saying it rather than what we're saying. Sometimes it's easier to push through the interruptions in that context rather than stop and discuss them.

And this is intensified when it's someone with whom I've had that discussion a lot. If it's still a new thing being worked on, then it might be worth working on at that point. If it's old, then it's not always worthwhile. It might be worthwhile later, but not in the middle of things.

Ah. Yes, most of my arguments with Sai tend to devolve into meta-arguments. I don't seem to have that problem with most people, though--but then there aren't that many people I have important processing kinda conversations with in general.

*snort* *laugh* _SO_ very much ditto on this, although at least part of that is that I don't _trust_ my non-verbal communication skills to that extent.

They may be helpful for getting a sense of people, but they are not consistantly helpful for getting specific information.

*amused* People who rely too heavily on non-verbal communication are going to get frustrated with me _really_ early on. Which is good, really!

It is because you have these things in your head and because of the way in which you handle them that I consider you so very trustworthy.

yes! yes. same.

M'kay. I'm still simultaneously understanding and confused by this (see my reply to

regyt), but ok. :)

I also have to wonder if this all is why I cope so poorly with people whose tempers seem to be very close to the surface. I have no reason to believe that they won't randomly flip out at me, and no reason to believe that I won't inadvertently cause flipouts on a regular basis.

I remember you worrying at one point that this could be the case with me, due to the... aaagh. No words! ... surrounding that one breakup. But I think you've been reassured since then, at least mostly. Yes?

But I think you've been reassured since then, at least mostly. Yes?

Yes.

Although I note that that was less a temper thing and more a potentially lashing out blindly when in pain thing, which generally tends most often to affect those one is close to.

Thingy. :)

Hm.

I have to think about whether I do that, and how much; as you now know, that situation was fairly unique, and my more recent breakup is more typical, in that lashing out did not occur much if at all. I don't think it occurred at all, other than some eyerolling and snarliness at the party in question when he was frustrating the hell out of me - but I don't think there was any inappropriate spillover.

Perspective?

I have to think about whether I do that, and how much

*nod* No idea... :)

as you now know, that situation was fairly unique, and my more recent breakup is more typical, in that lashing out did not occur much if at all

Yep! I do know. :)

eyerolling and snarliness at the party in question when he was frustrating the hell out of me - but I don't think there was any inappropriate spillover.

The former makes sense to me (hello, I know _no one_ who doesn't get like that when frustrated!), and the fact that you were good about keeping it reasonably contained to people you are very close to was (is!) comforting.

Yep! I do know. :)

Yay!

(hello, I know _no one_ who doesn't get like that when frustrated!)

Yes. I am no saint!

the fact that you were good about keeping it reasonably contained to people you are very close to was (is!) comforting.

Cool. It worried me that you were worried - it was so atypical a reaction. Breakup between grownups so != what the previous person did to me. But! Now you see. And now you can judge based on real-me.

*sigh* Brain a little off today. Forgive ramblings. *hug*

*sigh* Brain a little off today. Forgive ramblings. *hug*

No worries. :) *snuggle*

It seems, very strongly, to be yet another symptom of my difficulties with extrapolating information from lots of small, but apparently related, bits of information. Or, put another way, to get from details to generalities, or from vaguely related experiences to approximating something that I have not yet experienced.

Interesting; I have exactly the opposite problem - I am fantastic at extrapolating from small bit of info, but if the sample size is insufficient or somehow corrupted with bad info, then I'm "good" at making up all kinds of stuff that has no correlation to reality, save in the vaguest way. Maybe I have an extra-extrapolation module in my brain. If you come and eat it out, then you and I can both get some sorta harmony. That sounds like a fine plan.

Sometimes people tell me that I tend too strongly toward people who are similar to me in thinking.

Hrmmm... do you think that you and I are very similar in thinking? I believe that you and I have extremely different ways of thinking, yet I find that it's quite easy to speak with/understand you.

Maybe I have an extra-extrapolation module in my brain. If you come and eat it out, then you and I can both get some sorta harmony. That sounds like a fine plan.

Figure out how I can do that, and I'll try it. ;)

similar in thinking

Depends on what the question is.

But, in a fairly general sub-culture kind of way, yes. Both poly, both geeky, for example.

I've mostly had this comment from people who were far less similar than you and I are.

I have exactly the opposite problem - I am fantastic at extrapolating from small bit of info, but if the sample size is insufficient or somehow corrupted with bad info, then I'm "good" at making up all kinds of stuff that has no correlation to reality

Those might actually be different aspects of the same problem. Me, I'm no good at extrapolating because I can always think of a million generalizations that might fit the data and I suck at judging which ones are reasonable interpretations--so I'm unable or unwilling to pick one and the result ends up being the same as if I couldn't think of any.

no good at extrapolating because I can always think of a million generalizations that might fit the data and I suck at judging which ones are reasonable interpretations

Ah. Hmm.

Hmm. You know, I can't decide if this is actually what's going on, or if the generalizations don't occur to me at all. I suspect that it's a combination of both, as I'm nearly certain to interpret 'discarded because of insufficient correlation' and 'no generalizations came to mind' the same way. Hmm...

So much of this sounds so very similar. Cindy has been frustrated because I do something really will try to commit all the different little rules that seem to come up as I don't understand why each of the little rules are the way they are.

I want to comment on so much of this post that it's almost overwhelming. I suspect that the congruity here might be one of the reasons we seem to connect...

I want to comment on so much of this post that it's almost overwhelming. I suspect that the congruity here might be one of the reasons we seem to connect...

Indeed. :)

My brain! But I share. ;)

So, do you mind if I point to this from my journal? I think this would be a good pointer for people trying to deal with some of my own stuff...

I am actually good at synthesizing new stuff from various small disparate bits. That it tends to be rather _different_ than what most other people would come up with is both good and bad…

do you mind if I point to this from my journal?

*blinks* *looks at you funny*

Anything I post publically is always fair game for linking to. I don't know why it _wouldn't_ be!

I'd rather ask and be looked at funny than say "Oops. Sorry about that." Or as a friend told me that I sometimes look behind myself and say "Oh. Was that a boundary?" /me points to the post above. :)

*chuckle* Understood.

One of my partners once linked to something that I really preferred not to have public. I'd forgotten to lock it, so he assumed it was okay to link to, so rather than "whoops, here, I fixed this, maybe a few random people saw it, but no biggie," it became "dammit, a few people were led straight here, and they included folks I didn't want to share that with."

It made me glad people ask first, but also made me re-think what I filter, and why.

Also, I still don't always ask first. It depends on my sense of the person.

It made me glad people ask first, but also made me re-think what I filter, and why.

Hmm! Yeah, that sounds like it would have been unpleasant.

I tend to be somewhat poor about remembering to ask about things which are both public and not something I can comprehend being worried about others seeing, which hasn't yet had unfortunate results in the particular context of LJ. But I do still sometimes wonder if it will.

I'm also known to ask about posts that I would like to link to, but which are not public, and have tended to have _really_ good luck with people being willing to unlock those for linking to make sense. So, it's perhaps something about the kinds of posts that I think others might appreciate that makes them generally not be the kind of thing which is intensely private. In fact, now that I think about it, I _have_ asked about a public post before linking to it, simply because it felt so private, at some level, and the person was fine with it.

Not sure what's up with that, or what it is that I might be keying off of such that I haven't had problems in this regard, but it's interesting. Privacy is often a very confusing thing!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[brains, AS]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: trust games

Re: trust games

Re: trust games

Re: trust games

Re: trust games

Re: trust games

Re: trust games

Re: trust games

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

percolation station

Re: percolation station

Re: percolation station

Re: percolation station

Re: percolation station

Re: percolation station

Re: percolation station

Re: percolation station