> Both my sons and their father likely all qualify for an ASD label, though none of them has been officially diagnosed.
> I know a lot about the topic of autism and related issues.
Me too. I have a diagnosis based on DSM-5, and with ICD numbers (for insurance related reasons I guess). My cousin had an Asperger diagnosis based on DSM-4 when that was still relevant. My partner likely has autism as well (though its difficult to diagnose for females), and I am getting therapy as well; both group therapy and family therapy. My partner received partner group therapy. I suspect its mostly from my father's side, but I see traits in my mother's side as well. Regarding my parents; I believe the spectrum was a non-conscious or perhaps subconscious important reason why they felt attracted to each other. YMMV.
> I get tired of seeing social difficulties chalked up to a label of some disability or other.
As a general note we shouldn't diagnose other people, but that wasn't the intent of my original post at all. I merely noted its a trait people with autism commonly have.
Conclusions such as that all people with autism have this, that all people in IT have this, or refuting such conclusions are all bifurcations from your own conto; not mine.
Why are people with autism often too direct? It is due to a weaker Theory of Mind (ToM) [1].
On HN we need to assume people mean the most positive with their posts. If we apply this on life, then all people want to function in society [even with their disabilities]. They want to have success in their communication. Heck, I do too! A repeating failure to communicate is a red flag of something being wrong with that person. It'd mean that those who are responsible for that person (professionals including in medical field, but also teachers, parents/caretakers, and if they're adult: themselves) should consider to seek professional help. A lot of people in our world end up in (deep) trouble such as addiction or prison while professional help could've helped them, and that very much saddens me (am currently watching series Orange Is The New Black).
> It takes a couple of decades to properly raise a human and prepare them for their role in society. A large part of social skills are learned behavior. This is why we have the term socialization.
For most people, they get to basic social levels during teenager years or young adultery. The problem is that people with autism -more so those without therapy/help- are generally worse at learning this (some are downright terrible).
Its important to note that not everyone has autism has exactly the same issues. Some people don't have much issues with ToM but rather with executive functioning (EF), or central coherence (CC). And even then, the lists for each of these are long. Specific sub-traits might be better or worse within each specimen.
> Furthermore, different approaches are normal in different contexts. Someone who is not autistic and has no difficulty understanding and navigating social things can have trouble when placed in a new situation, including but not limited to a different culture.
Well, that's including someone with undiagnosed autism, or mild autism. I recommend to stop seeing a situation like this as black-and-white (stop bifurcation) and start seeing the shades of grey.
> Accusations of being autistic as an explanation for abrasive behavior are almost never sympathetic. They are almost never an attempt to understand why someone is coming across poorly and find a way to better interact with them. They boil down to a suggestion of incompetence and a dismissal of the person's position, as well as any legitimate anger or frustration they may be feeling.
I don't see it as an accusation. I don't see autism as a negative trait per see. Not at all. I see it like a knife or computer; a tool which can be used for good and evil. That does explain why we're having this discussion in the first place though.
> There are cultures, including the American military, where being very blunt is the norm.
It should be noted this is a top-down hierarchy, and the bluntness is top-down as well; not bottom-up. The arguments used by such cathedral-style hierarchies are comprised of argumentum ad baculum (see hereunder for further discussion).
> As others have noted here, when people accuse someone of being rude, it very often means they don't like being disagreed with and are just looking for an excuse to be offended and level accusations.
That depends on their other arguments. Pointing out a fallacy such as an argumentum ad hominem doesn't mean everything the person said is invalid. It just points out the person is (partly) using a fallacy to make their point. It is, essentially, akin to telling someone to tone down their voice. Yes, it can be frustrating to hear that when you're angry, but that doesn't mean the person who points that out is wrong.
Similarly, someone replying to Torvalds: "could you please make your point without insults and vulgar language" isn't saying Torvalds has no point. As such, painting it as if I am trying to attack Torvalds with an ad hominem here is... frankly ridiculous. I don't always agree with his viewpoints, but I got nothing against the man.
> It seems you are trying to be an advocate for yourself and others with the same diagnosis. This is not the way to go about it. It comes across as simply insulting Linus Torvalds as an excuse to not take his position seriously while at the same time slandering the entire IT profession with a tired and untrue stereotype that everyone in IT has terrible social skills and they are all just aspie.
I'd say that's far-fetched and full with assumptions but if that's your interpretation of my post(s), so be it.
(I can't control myself to not include this so FYI: "Aspie" no longer exists since DSM-5. If someone calls me an Aspie they clearly are using old, outdated terminology.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Autism