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

221–230 of 521 posts

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

#221

Post by larve »

Bedon292 wrote: post #116
stkni wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was my take too. The break-down in communication might not be WHAT is being said but HOW it's being said. This is certainly my experience of being a dev and a manager, sometimes people just seem a bit rude and it's hard to get past. Is the rudeness excusable? I guess. Especially if I understand where it's coming from. Otherwise it's just rudeness. And I guess that the point of the article, but you need to get to…

This reminds me of a time, many years ago now, another engineer and myself ended up in a debate with one of the executives. We seemed to be in a very strong disagreement with them. After well over an hour of getting nowhere we ended up going back and essentially starting over breaking everything down into little pieces and ensuring our definitions of everything lined up. Turns out we agreed the whole time, but how ea…

Yes, it’s a hard skill to learn, and … it’s why I ask so many questions / make sure we have the same context.

Very often in software engineering, people use abstract words that have been overloaded with meanings in many different ways, and it can be easy to think the other person is suggesting something completely different. I love using diagrams because they remove a lot of the “words”.

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

#222

Post by injb »

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…

>> You can't be stupider than a rock, but there seems to be no upper definite upper limit to human intelligence.

But to conclude from this that most are below average, wouldn't you have to know that the high IQs pull the average up more than the low IQs pull it down? I don't see how the mere assumption that there's no upper limit gets you there (not to mention that this assumption is bound to be wrong anyway). But as you say, maybe there's a reason I'm in the big half...

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

#223

Post by larve »

JackFr wrote: post #79
zrail wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I realize I was too quick to edit this down into a single sentence in the first paragraph, but my standard MO is to go “oh you’re right” if someone points out an error in my thinking. And if I can’t realize I’m wrong, but I also can’t explain why in precise terms, I make a note and go study the heck out of the topic in the next few days.

Interestingly, as I’ve grown more experienced, it has become much easier to realize that I don’t know jack about anything really, and that it is so easy to go out and look for answers with the resources we have nowadays.

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

#224

Post by larve »

nibbleshifter wrote: post #127
xSxY3fj5gVCmvWE wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want them to prepend every paragraph with "I know I'm wrong sometimes"? What does that achieve? The article is nice, concise, and gets the point across beautifully. Everybody's wrong sometimes, but some people are genuinely very rarely wrong in their area of expertise, and I'm willing to believe this guy is one of them. I'm glad he doesn't give in to the petty workplace politics, and I wish more people would.

It makes the allistic reader feel better to have it repeated, even though its stated in the first paragraph.

Thanks for reading. That is a very good point I have taken away from publishing this. I stated in the first sentence that I have no problem being wrong, in fact, I want to be wrong because it means I can do an even better job and learn new stuff.

If anything, the ratio of “you can’t acknowledge you’re wrong” to “oh i’m wrong” situations is about 1:1000. In future articles, I will spread and repeat things out a bit more, instead of editing an article like I would a strategy document.

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

#225

Post by knaik94 »

zamalek wrote: post #198
knaik94 wrote: post #187

I read this as writing from someone who has a hard time seeing from other people's perspective. I believe part of the responsibility falls on the author. While they acknowledge that they aren't great at communication, their conclusion does not include working on soft skills. It's something I realized when I started tutoring, if a student fails to understand you, it's not their fault for not understanding. It's on you…

> someone who has a hard time who has a hard time seeing from other people's perspective You're blaming someone for their disability - this is basically the equivalent of blaming a paraplegic for not being able to walk. Social skills are almost entirely an intellectual process (as opposed to an instinctual process) for many autistic people. It's not like learning to ride a bike (as it is for neurotypical people), it'…

I apologize if that came off as something with a negative connotation, it wasn't meant to. That article was not as helpful as you probably intended. I also didn't realize how gender norms are inherently tied to the theory and diagnosis of autism according to certain frameworks in the article you linked.

I don't this it's fair to argue that difficulty understanding other perspectives/lack of empathy is something you should accept the same way you do a disability. It's not the same at all.

Knowing how your words will be understood from someone else's perspective is something that can be learned. I had to learn it when I started tutoring. Students with poor performance struggle due to the consequence of failure to teach, much more than a failure to learn. I didn't say it would be easy. Intellectual or instinctual doesn't make a difference as it can still be learned. Autism is very diverse in presentation so I know there are limits to the generalizations I am making.

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

#226

Post by shlant »

cainxinth wrote: post #154

His thesis is that autistic people are unfairly characterized as not being able to admit when they wrong… and then he proceeds to explain that he’s almost never wrong.

I don't understand why so many people are saying this. The article specifically says at the begging:

"When these conflicts arise, here are some things that might be happening"

SOME and MIGHT are being completely ignored and replaced with absolutes by many commenters. At no point does it claim to be an exhaustive list of every possible single interaction, nor does it say that there are no other explanations.

If anything, these kinds of reactions are proving the point that the Autistic are being misinterpreted (or in this case completely misrepresented).

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

#227

Post by cloverich »

larve wrote: post #106
gnfargbl wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you actually asked what the goals of the manager's proposed evaluation/comparison were, great! If you had probed around the context of the discussion a little bit by asking some open questions like "So why did this article pique your interest in relation to our company?" or "That's interesting, I wonder how their approach compares to ours. What do you think?", then even better. However, that isn't quite what…

I agree. I am pretty good at being social and suave in the workplace (so well I never would have thought I was autistic until age 40), but of course I can be in a bad mood or phrase something wrong. But even if that is the case, shutting down a business conversation because you think your engineer sounds patronizing is just… not great business/tech crossover, to be honest.

I understand and empathize with your angle. But it is important to know -- nobody likes being patronized. Whether it is actually happening, or only perceived to be happening, this is a universal truth of social interactions. The vast majority of people in all social settings -- professional or otherwise -- will not collaborate with someone who is patronizing unless forced, even if it will be mutually beneficial. This is something you cannot change.

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

#228

Post by antasvara »

larve wrote: post #215
antasvara wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People can be wrong about factual things, which can be verified. Otherwise it’s a difference of opinions. What doesn't come across in your article is that you can be wrong about factual things. It is unclear or unmentioned that you actually can be wrong sometimes. These communication patterns make sense with what I know about people. I don't doubt that they happen relatively frequently, and can result in a situation…

Author here, thanks for the feedback. This article is indeed edited down heavily. I had more conversational drafts. Your remark is something I have been thinking about. For me, it’s patently evident that I’m wrong about 90% of the time when discussing facts. In fact, “truth” is one of my core values, and the only way I can honor that (and be a good engineer) is to question my every statement. That’s why I write unit…

>When I know something is true, I tend to only state it once, because why would I need to repeat it. I am starting to realize this doesn’t work out that well :)

The point I'm making is that you didn't state this once. You kind of stated it in the first paragraph, but not in a way that implies that you can be wrong for reasons that aren't miscommunications.

>For me, it’s patently evident that I’m wrong about 90% of the time when discussing facts.

I think that's the part that wasn't clear from the article. When you title an article "Autistic people can't acknowledge when they're wrong," then spend an article talking about how this is due to misunderstandings, it comes across like the exact rationalizations that your article strikes back against.

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

#229

Post by Bedon292 »

larve wrote: post #201
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.

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 a…

I would be interested in a longer version of the post if it is something you are considering making available.

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

#230

Post by shlant »

Orothrim wrote: post #10

The issue with this article is how the author is approaching all of these discussions. There is no attempt to see the other person's perspective, or evaluate how the author should be approaching the discussion. This is very common among us Engineers but is a massive failure. If a manager comes over and suggests something to you, you need to understand their perspective for coming to that discussion, not asking questi…

> There is no attempt to see the other person's perspective, or evaluate how the author should be approaching the discussion

The whole point of the article is to provide the perspective of the Autistic. Why are you assuming "There is no attempt to see the other person's perspective"? Why are you demanding the subject of the article be about what you want it to be or for it to cover the other side of the interaction? There are certainly interactions where there is a misunderstanding on the side of the non-autistic and that is what this article is attempting to provide insight into.

Post reply on HN