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

151–160 of 521 posts

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

#151

Post by TimPC »

starkd wrote: post #91
jiggawatts wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you might be confusing autistism with high intelligence. The two are very different. I'm not sure it's even remotely comparable. Most autistic truly autistic people have a severe deficit to the point they have a problem with basic navigation of the world. Not just inconvencies. There's a tendency to turn every difficulty into a syndrome. While reading the article, I had the distinct feeling the author was not…

There isn’t anything “most” autistic people have. The disorder is defined by having at least three of twelve major symptoms so it’s possible for two people with autism to not even overlap in their symptoms. There is also a huge range of severity and many people with the disorder are high-functioning. High-functioning autism is significantly correlated with high IQs. This dismissal amounts to “this can’t be hard for you, you’re just choosing not to practice” which is a rather offensive way to deal with someone’s disability.

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

#152

Post by denton-scratch »

morelisp wrote: post #110
roflc0ptic wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think pinning this on autism is misplaced. Willingness to engage in exploratory conversation is a combination of intelligence and learned habits of mind. If your boss (anyone, really!) comes to you with an idea and he misunderstands the first thing out of your mouth as a rejection, then you probably should work on how you communicate that thing. Or just surround yourself with smarter people. Also if your bos…

> consider shopping for a new boss. Autism really is orthogonal to that situation sucking. The boss is doing absolutely the right thing here! Asking a trusted domain expert for an opinion about whether some technical investment would benefit the business. The alternatives are a) the boss hears the podcast and the next day "rewrite it all in React" is at the top of the backlog, or b) the boss never polls the team abou…

> Asking a trusted domain expert for an opinion about whether some technical investment would benefit the business.

Sure, that's good management - ask the expert.

But this manager didn't want to clarify the question, so that the expert could give a considered answer.

Perhaps the manager already knew what answer he wanted?

There's this estimating technique: it's called "Guess the number the manager wants you to give". It's much less career-limiting than giving an honest answer.

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

#153

Post by scotty79 »

yieldcrv wrote: post #86

> 1. The allistic (non-autistic) person is not hearing what I'm saying. > 2. I need to ask questions before forming an opinion. I'm not considered as being on the spectrum (except when "everyone is on the spectrum" for inclusivity reasons of not alienating a socially inept person) and I've had an experience distinct with workers at big tech firms when I offer a perspective they say I'm being defensive and impossible…

I encountered some people that percive any discussion as arguing and frame every information exchange in combative terms (defensive, attacking, winning, loosing). They also tend to exhibit some narcissistic behaviors and qualities so I wouldn't think they are the norm.

I think you've just met some people from that flavor of assholes.

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

#155

Post by notahacker »

larve wrote: post #18
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.

thanks for reading, author here! the article is very much a response to a blame already expressed. People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. Otherwise it’s a difference of opinions. These are my thoughts on why differences of opinions get phrased as “autistic people just can’t admit when they are wrong”, when myself and most autistic people I know in fact readily admit when we are wrong and mov…

> People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. Otherwise it’s a difference of opinions.

This attitude is exactly what [neurotypical] people generally mean when they say "[some] autistic people can't acknowledge when they're wrong".

Not that autistic people are so convinced of their own rightness that they stare at the compiler saying "my code is flawless, the compiler must be bugged" because there is literally no circumstance in which they will ever update their worldview. But that when it comes to cases where [multiple] people suggest that the question they asked or the tone they asked it in might have been suboptimal for the situation, they are likely to rationalise it as just unverifiable opinion or status games which can't be learned from (but nevertheless, the difference of opinion probably results from misreading by the other party)

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

#156

Post by morelisp »

denton-scratch wrote: post #152
morelisp wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consider shopping for a new boss. Autism really is orthogonal to that situation sucking. The boss is doing absolutely the right thing here! Asking a trusted domain expert for an opinion about whether some technical investment would benefit the business. The alternatives are a) the boss hears the podcast and the next day "rewrite it all in React" is at the top of the backlog, or b) the boss never polls the team abou…

> Asking a trusted domain expert for an opinion about whether some technical investment would benefit the business. Sure, that's good management - ask the expert. But this manager didn't want to clarify the question, so that the expert could give a considered answer. Perhaps the manager already knew what answer he wanted? There's this estimating technique: it's called "Guess the number the manager wants you to give".…

The author has not even attempted to paraphrase or summarize the manager's response, so this is also guess-work on your part.

Conversely, if I ask a colleague, however smart, a question but their response is "first I need a 10min infodump on things many of which I should already be aware of", I'm just going to say "nevermind then, thanks" and go ask the colleague who can communicate in a more focused and proactive way. (It's not a very charitable reading of the author's position either. I'd prefer to believe both were acting in good faith but with completely misaligned goals.)

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

#157

Post by camtarn »

larve wrote: post #18
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.

thanks for reading, author here! the article is very much a response to a blame already expressed. People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. Otherwise it’s a difference of opinions. These are my thoughts on why differences of opinions get phrased as “autistic people just can’t admit when they are wrong”, when myself and most autistic people I know in fact readily admit when we are wrong and mov…

I feel like the article isn't actually directly addressing its title. It could be stronger with some situations to when you were wrong, with examples of how that was swiftly resolved, as you mentioned in the intro paragraph.

At the moment it feels like it takes for granted that you're good at resolving situations where you're objectively wrong, so it's only addressing situations where there was a difference of opinions.

I'm not implying that you're bad at the former, of course. However, it's entirely possible for people to have trouble engaging you when there's a difference of opinion and for you not to be able to acknowledge when you're objectively wrong - i.e. that all of the issues you've identified in the article are happening, but that the title quote is still actually true.

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

#158

Post by denton-scratch »

dalbasal wrote: post #132

I think this is a good/important article. Yes, it is a "POV" perspective, and has elements of defensiveness but it is also honest and open... trying to find better communication. >>>impatient and cut me off or interject with a snap interpretation of what I have said so far. So... this sounds like you have already entered into defensiveness by this point, one way or another. Defensiveness tends to be mutual, so perhap…

> a somewhat combative frame

This is a technical discussion we're talking about. In technical discussions, I don't want to faff around with euphemisms, circumlocutions, or fancy pronouns. It's hard enough to be clear in technical discourse, even if you aren't carrying those burdens.

I expect people to speak directly, even if on the face of it their utterances might seem rude if spoken in a social context. If a colleague goes in with both fists and feet in a technical discussion, and wins, that doesn't mean they're no longer my friend - it just means I was wrong, and I learned something. Drawing blood in a technical discussion is just part of the life of a technician.

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

#159

Post by scotty79 »

cainxinth wrote: post #149
scotty79 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. The sheer level of disrespect in this comment... You can't appreciate that this person have spent 10h per day for last 23 years at dealing with computer issues. Instead you think it would be better spent learning some office politics. I'm not even sure how to comment on that.

There’s a difference between engaging in petty office politics and endeavoring to grow your soft skills. And everyone, including hard core techies, can benefit from learning how to better interact with other people.

Or hear me out. Maybe allistic people could learn to interact with autistic people since they'll be meeting a lot of them in IT.

Those are not hard skills to learn, like patiently responding to questions before jumping to conclusions about what the person you are talking to thinks about this and that.

Post reply on HN