“Autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong” • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by larve » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:54 PM UTC

starkd wrote: post #175

shlant wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. why are you assuming they are talking to people IRL like they would write a blog post? Very few people talk in person like they type or behave differently in professional environments vs casual. Seems like a weird critique.

Fair point. He did not explicitly quote his conversations with his colleagues. Still, you have to admit "allistic communication patterns" is an awkward phrase to use for a blog post talking about his personal struggles. It might be something you find in a psychology research text, but he was trying to relate his personal experience.

Author here, thanks for reading. I was a bit torn about the “allistic” word, and decided to include it because it does encode what I was talking about in a very technical manner. In fact, if I regret one thing, it is to edit this blog post to shreds. It used to be much more conversational at around 2000 words, and probably conveyed more nuance.

I like the form it currently has too, but it requires taking every word at face value, and not assuming any subtext. For example, I don’t blame anybody, thus I really mean I am not blaming anybody. This is an examination of how things have played out and why they might have played out the way they did. Nothing more.

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

#202

Post by knaik94 » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:54 PM UTC

shlant wrote: post #186

starkd wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. He did not explicitly quote his conversations with his colleagues. Still, you have to admit "allistic communication patterns" is an awkward phrase to use for a blog post talking about his personal struggles. It might be something you find in a psychology research text, but he was trying to relate his personal experience.

I think "allistic communication patterns" very effectively conveys what they are referring to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Allistic communication patterns aren't homogenous. And I think the phrasing is very clinical. It is effective but the tone is not very welcoming. I think it's a fair critique of the writing.

I would have written something like, "Allistic people communicate in a way that causes friction in understanding by autistic people, and vice versa, and this leads to a slowdown in the workplace for everyone."

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

#203

Post by larve » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:56 PM UTC

prometheus76 wrote: post #103

q-big wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene is a good place to start. Even if you don't want to turn to the dark side, this book will at least reveal to you how some of your competition is thinking and maneuvering.

The reason I like Carnegie more than Greene is that Carnegie is not cynical, and beyond the clickbait title of the book actually presents compassion, curiosity and integrity as core values, which resonates strongly with me. Thus, applying its advice doesn’t feel like “playing a game”, it feels as “well directed efforts in line with my values”.

Greene however just makes me feel icky.

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

#204

Post by jaywalk » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:56 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #131

jaywalk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the example about rewriting a page in React really stood out to me for this. He says "I entertained the question in good faith" but he was clearly just asking "gotcha" questions to try and show the manager what a stupid question it was. And it may very well have been a stupid question, but as you said, he didn't even attempt to understand his manager's perspective. I can totally understand why his manager got f…

> just asking "gotcha" questions I didn't read them as "gotcha" questions. They looked like straightforward and sensible questions. I wonder if the manager was expecting some kind of kickback, and was braced to be adversarial. Perhaps there's some history here, between author and his manager.

From a purely technical standpoint, of course they are valid questions. But from a political standpoint, when you know that your manager just read a blog post about React, I think the discussion needs to be framed differently. Starting out with something like "Oh, yeah. I'm familiar with React. What were some of the positive aspects of it that stood out to you?" will help to understand their perspective.

Again, I fully acknowledge that a React rewrite could very well be a complete waste of time and effort in this scenario. But his manager obviously thought it could be worthwhile, or he wouldn't have asked about it.

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

#205

Post by smugma » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:59 PM UTC

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…

Egocentric: thinking only of oneself, without regard for the feelings or desires of others

A lot of challenges with autism can be about not being able to see others’ perspectives

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

#206

Post by larve » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:59 PM UTC

300bps wrote: post #87

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…

I cringed reading the article because of how much it reminded me of my younger self in my software engineering career 30 years ago. For what it’s worth, I think your assessment and advice are both spot-on. I know the original author is far into his career as well but I think especially as we get more senior that humility and valuing other’s perspectives become as important as the technology. Some of the biggest mista…

Thanks for reading. I don’t go very much into my day to day workflow, but I actively seek out ideas of my peers and trusting them to do their own mistakes, being at the ready to help out only when things go very wrong.

I wrote this article because despite being as humble as I can, these situations still arise. You can get very far doing so, but my biggest mistakes were to not realize that I sometimes actually right.

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

#207

Post by dalbasal » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:59 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #158

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 collea…

Technical, nerdy people are often combative in passive aggressive ways.

Assuming a "I am the objective one" is often just a blindspot. Everyone is subjective to some extent, and admitting that you are a person with a perspective (as opposed to a neutral observer) is useful for avoiding such tensions.

Just admit that you have opinions, and present them as such.

"I am concerned that we are taking on a risky project, without understanding the implications. I would like to analytically discuss performance, and plan this product to these performance goals. I prefer an approach based on..."

Place yourself into the narrative. Not just other people.

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

#208

Post by dusted » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:59 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #137

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…

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.

I didn't intended to signal disrespect the author, and I don't disrespect them, I think the article they wrote is very interesting and insightful, and a great topic for discussion indeed. I also feel that I have had much the same experience through my life, both personally and especially, professionally.

Thing is, programming computers and solving technical problems is fun to me, I enjoy it, and it's a perfectly spent time for me, as I believe it is to them.. I don't enjoy office politics, I hate them, I don't like a lot of how society is structured with regards to social convention and politics in general..

But the universe does not care about my opinion that technical problems are worthier pursuits than learning how to handle people, especially people with vastly different (and/or inferior by whatever standard you need) skills, because at the end of the day, the cost is going to be greater to me than to the multinational megacorp.

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

#209

Post by CitizenKane » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 2:00 PM UTC

Overtonwindow wrote: post #14

IMO autism causes an absence self-awareness, and because of that inability to recognize and modulate their own behavior, they are naturally defensive when you point out their errant behavior. In a way it's almost cruel. They don't, and can't see themselves the way other people do, and pointing out a flaw just makes things worse. Is it wrong to say that a person with autism can't really help themselves?

I'm autistic and it definitely doesn't cause a lack of self-awareness. If anything I'm more aware than most neurotypical folks.

I can't speak for every autistic person, but at least in my experience when people do point out our mistakes it often tends to be lacking context. Indeed we don't see ourselves the way others do, but what is sometimes flaw in communication with a neurotypical person is exactly what I would want to do with another autistic person. Pointing out mistakes of this nature in a blunt way is unpleasant, and I've often been expected to be able to intuit the feelings of neurotypical people in these situations even though I literally think and feel differently.

It can be quite frustrating, and I've found that many autistic people will become defensive about personal qualities because of past poor experiences in giving/receiving feedback.

I wish neurotypical folks could see the other side and experience what it's like to be around mostly autistic people. I have no doubt many would become defensive when they've been told again and again that they're being too loud, that they're not discussing they're ideas in enough depth, that they're not being calm enough, or whatever autistic predisposition they'd end up accidentally bumping up against. Thinking and feeling differently from the majority of folks is difficult, but it's even more difficult when folks expect you to know and understand where there mind is at.

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

#210

Post by notahacker » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 2:02 PM UTC

jiggawatts wrote: post #148

injb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> An uncomfortable truth we all pretend to ignore is that more than half the population is below average intelligence.[1] >> [1] If you don't know why more than half, well... umm... I have some bad news for you about which half you might be in. I don't know why more than half. Can you explain?

Medians, averages, and the peak of a probability distribution are all distinct in the general case. You can't be stupider than a rock, but there seems to be no upper definite upper limit to human intelligence. Hence the IQ curve isn't a Gaussian. It isn't symmetric. The average is dragged upwards by very-high-IQ people, above the median. This is like a billionaire moving to some tiny country town. The average income…

The analogy to power-law distributed wealth where some people clearly tangibly do have a billion times more than other people feels stretchy. To the extent that standardised IQ tests adequately quantify intelligence, Marilyn vos Savant might have busted out of the constructed Gaussian distribution by registering 2.28x the average score, but she's comfortably outnumbered by people lacking the ability to register a score in cognitive ability tests. And if anything, the score range probably inflates the differences in overall capability given the respective quantifiable intellectual achievements of people on the upper side of the bell curve seem to be more about specialism and motivation than dozens of point differences in test scores...