Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong”

the.scapegoat.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 521 posts

Re: “Autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong”

#71

Post by dusted »

q-big wrote: post #55
dusted wrote: post #19

I read this as being strongly opinionated and egocentric.. I want to call it "ausplaining", this tendency to go "no no, YOU don't understand ME (because I'm special, not because I'm wrong)" whenever we get ourselves into situations like the exemplified. I do this A LOT as well, and when people do stick with me for long enough, I often find that I'm either getting my point across by re-framing my explanation, or disco…

> The author may also benefit from investing some of their mental capital (I'm not being sarcastic, they're obviously very intelligent) into learning how to play the games I am not aware of any good systematic textbooks on this topic. (of course not the author)

I am also not.

But anything that gives me insight into how I differ from others, and how their mind works has helped me.

Even books like "The Intelligent Negotiator", "The Intelligent Conversationalist" which superficially seems to be mainly about manipulating and scamming people give interesting insights into how people work.

I've also read some books on pedagogy, a subject I hate due to how much childhood trauma its rigid application caused me..

Maybe because of it.. Those books, at least the old ones I read, define the boxes into which children will and must fit, the methods to make them fit, and the reasoning behind those methods..

Very interesting stuff to read for me, because it made it clear why it didn't work on me, and why it would have worked on my peers. They are almost lists of "behaviour X is due to situation Y" which may be true for neurotypical children, but were certainly not for me. I digress, they gave me good insights into how "the others" work.

Re: “Autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong”

#72

Post by thatha7777 »

Hallelujah, as I recently discovered I'm on the ASD, this speaks great truths.

Autism is a disability (but it's only a disability because our society is disabled) —— the individual isn't disabled.

Obviously, many people don't believe "reasonable accommodations" are to be made and that our society is to be improved and resolve to neologisms such as "ausplaining" which I find deeply inappropriate in our times.

Re: “Autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong”

#73

Post by JackFr »

Author might be confusing “autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong” with “you can’t acknowledge when you’re wrong”

In all of the straw men he presents, it’s curious that none of them entertain the possibility that he ever is actually wrong. The issue isn’t that he is autistic it’s more likely he's simply insufferable.

Re: “Autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong”

#74

Post by starkd »

dusted wrote: post #19

I read this as being strongly opinionated and egocentric.. I want to call it "ausplaining", this tendency to go "no no, YOU don't understand ME (because I'm special, not because I'm wrong)" whenever we get ourselves into situations like the exemplified. I do this A LOT as well, and when people do stick with me for long enough, I often find that I'm either getting my point across by re-framing my explanation, or disco…

He openly admits his default way of dealing with the miscommunication was to quietly walk out of the room. Looks like he could consider some of his own advice. Also, referring to "allistic communication patterns" might also be another impediment here. Normal people don't talk like that. It's like talking to a robot.

Re: “Autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong”

#75

Post by musingsole »

W4ldi wrote: post #12

It's called narcissistic entitlement to expect the whole world to change their behaviour because of ones own inability to fit in. I'm not saying it is fair. Life is never fair. The only one who has the ability to influence those situations is oneself. You can't rely on other to change - it won't work anyways. You have to be the one that improves those interactions. For your own good.

You're reading more into this piece than is there. The author never advocates that the rest of the world should change. This post only claims that these miscommunication scenarios between experts on the autistic spectrum and allistic people HAPPEN.

They happen to me too.

Understanding the nature of the miscommunication is the first step towards averting it in the future.

Re: “Autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong”

#76

Post by batch12 »

I have found that sometimes nobody is wrong. Sometimes it is a preference that is being debated (once you dig in). As such, it's not as important to be right as it is to preserve a working relationship. I also try to decide if the thing being discussed the "hill to die on" or is it not really worth debating? Advice I give my kids to think about is- if you think you are right and it feels like the whole world insists you are wrong, take a second and try to make sure you are as right as you think you are. In my experience, it is a rare thing that everyone is totally wrong about something. And- in the end, if you're right, you're right-- but does it really matter? Does being "right" help you or those you are debating in that specific situation-- or is it only pride that motivates you? I think we need to relearn that it's okay to disagree.

Re: “Autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong”

#77

Post by denton-scratch »

jiggawatts wrote: post #47
korijn wrote: post #3

It's interesting to me that all four examples put the blame with the other party. I hope it's just worded poorly or I am reading too much into it. Edit: I'm not saying that invalidates the article's content (in fact I recognize the situations from personal experience), but it doesn't really put a positive spin on it.

Sometimes the blame is with the other party. An uncomfortable truth we all pretend to ignore is that more than half the population is below average intelligence.[1] The comments in this blog post don't just apply to autistic people, but apply equally to people that are simply less wrong than average. An observation I made is that some people make correct statements approximately 90% of the time. This is waaaay above…

> more than half the population is below average intelligence.

I guess I'm in the bottom half, then; I thought the average was that quantity for which half are below, and half are above.

Re: “Autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong”

#78

Post by engineeringwoke »

q-big wrote: post #55
dusted wrote: post #19

I read this as being strongly opinionated and egocentric.. I want to call it "ausplaining", this tendency to go "no no, YOU don't understand ME (because I'm special, not because I'm wrong)" whenever we get ourselves into situations like the exemplified. I do this A LOT as well, and when people do stick with me for long enough, I often find that I'm either getting my point across by re-framing my explanation, or disco…

> The author may also benefit from investing some of their mental capital (I'm not being sarcastic, they're obviously very intelligent) into learning how to play the games I am not aware of any good systematic textbooks on this topic. (of course not the author)

Ribbonfarm is better than anything else for non-neurotypical people. The examples are real and accurate although it does kind of spiral into odd places at the end.

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

Re: “Autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong”

#79

Post by JackFr »

zrail wrote: post #11
korijn wrote: post #3

It's interesting to me that all four examples put the blame with the other party. I hope it's just worded poorly or I am reading too much into it. Edit: I'm not saying that invalidates the article's content (in fact I recognize the situations from personal experience), but it doesn't really put a positive spin on it.

Not the author but the framing in the article implies that the author would have zero issue acknowledging if they actually were wrong.

And yet none of the hypothetical examples seem to entertain that possibility.
Post reply on HN