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

481–490 of 521 posts

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

#481

Post by KronisLV »

larve wrote: post #476
KronisLV wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am not going to state "python is better than C++" just because someone wants me to say it... You shouldn't, quite the opposite - you should be able to express your concerns freely or at least make them known in whatever form of a "paper trail" is available. Better yet, if you are able to provide examples of what might go wrong with a particular technical choice and how to address it. > ...or back down from someth…

On the topic of filesystems: for me, hardware storage systems, file systems, operating systems, user library, filesystem caching, file formats, persistence guarantees, recovery, that stuff is really complicated. I just can't say that it's simple, because to me it never will be. Maybe it's simple for the other person, but I don't understand why "giving in" helps any of us in this case. I just won't say "writing a file…

Hah, that's a fair point. Whenever someone tries to figure out how to store files, I'm usually inclined to just point them in the direction of S3 to attempt to at least minimize some of the eventual issues of dealing with files.

You know, even MongoDB GridFS or binary blobs in RDBMSes could be less problematic options, rather than dealing with inodes, maximum file path lengths, file name constraints, storing metadata, maximum files in a directory and eventually having to build a system for having a tree of nested folders to work around those (a bit like what Ruby on Rails ActiveStorage does with uploaded files out of the box, for example).

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

#482

Post by a_puppy »

KronisLV wrote: post #436
a_puppy wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think people can mean either one by "giving in", I am wondering whether the OP, in rejecting "pretending I agree when I don't" is accidentally being the person who "always insists on getting their way every time". Yes, it's possible that the OP is accidentally being a bully by insisting on getting their way every time. But it's also possible that everything the OP is saying is true, and the other party really is…

> I personally have encountered a situation where a tech lead repeatedly doubled down on idea that was objectively deeply flawed, but they had a lot of political capital, so management told me I just needed to "give in". Other engineers agreed with my assessment in private, but weren't willing to say so publicly. That that point you need to choose, which you value more highly: correctness and finding the best technic…

> or maintaining as much team cohesion and not "stirring the water" too much.

On an individual level, yes, that's the choice I had.

But on an organizational level, it's possible to do much better! In a healthy organization, tech leads listen to feedback and evaluate it with an open mind, and are willing to acknowledge that they're wrong. If they don't do that, then a healthy organization removes them from their position. In my case, this particular tech lead had a long history of being toxic, but the manager refused to fix the problem; this was a case of organizational dysfunction.

I don't know the details of the OP's situation, but I think it's possible they're running into something similar: Their coworkers aren't listening to valid points, and management isn't holding them accountable for being open-minded. If the org considers this behavior normal, I'd consider that a form of org dysfunction.

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

#483

Post by btilly »

beefield wrote: post #427
btilly wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you come across as the very stereotype of a person who is so focused on arguing about an irrelevant detail that there is no point in having the conversation with it. From my experiences with people on the spectrum, I would bet that you are arguing based on YOUR misunderstanding of the situation. And so your blog post can be summarized as, "Person who is convinced that they are right refuses to adm…

> - Will switching to React make hiring and training future developers easier? > - Will this technology choice make future projects faster to develop? (For example, do we get wins from a better toolchain, etc.) > - Will this be an interesting project that helps me keep existing employees motivated? > - Are the other claimed wins in the blog post actually going to work out that way? But... These are (or can be framed…

Yes, these can be framed as concrete problems. But people usually don't start with much clarity in their thought, so it is unlikely that they will be handed to you in such a way.

As for not producing a single concrete reason to try the new framework, there is no reason to believe that the manager didn't. According to the article the manager had just read a blog post on it, that caught the manager's attention enough to spark a conversation. SURELY there was SOMETHING in that article about why it might be a good idea to try React?

We aren't told what points were made, likely because they seemed irrelevant. But I'd bet good money that some were made.

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

#484

Post by rendall »

larve wrote: post #302
rendall wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a girlfriend who believes herself to be on the autism spectrum, and I cannot over years ever recall her admitting that she was wrong or apologizing at any time for anything. We do get along despite that, but I was kind of hoping for insight.

This does sound odd, but if it works for you... My examples are definitely all about the workplace.

She's pretty great, lack of apologies notwithstanding

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

#485

Post by Volundr »

gongador wrote: post #468
Noos wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are working with him to create a solution and should ask questions from a shared point of view. Your questions instead sound like you are doubting him. "How can this make our checkout page better?" "What benefits do other companies get from using React?" "Is it feasible to change technology at this time?" "There might be implications if we switch, like..." You are not understanding why they should consider it; yo…

> Your questions instead sound like you are doubting him. Respectfully, I disagree: _to you_, the "questions instead sound like you are doubting him". Maybe it even sounds that way to most people. It doesn't to me. I have been in very similar situations, and having experienced the frustration of communications failure, I've tried to take other approaches. A few times I've prefaced my questions with something along th…

I'm hesitant to reply further in this thread because I get the feeling I've made some people feel attacked and criticized which is not my intent, but I really don't think the issue here is the neurotypical manager's inability to admit they are wrong. Everyone in this conversation is wrong. Everyone believes that both sides of this conversation are having the same conversation, when instead each side is having a different conversation.

To the engineer, they've been asked a specific question "should we rewrite in React?". They assume the manager's has a specific motivation for asking, because the engineer would have a specific motivation for asking, and are asking questions to try to get at that motivation and determine if React will fill the manager's needs. The engineer is having a reasonable conversation.

To the manager, they've asked an open ended question "should we rewrite int React? What are the reasons why and why not? What issues could it address? What are the drawbacks? Any guess on time-frame? Cost?". The question "what issues is the site having that React could address?" is contained in the manager's question. The manager is also having a reasonable conversation.

The breakdown happened when both sides fail to realize that the other person is having a completely different conversation than they are. To the manager turning around and asking them "what issues are you hoping to address with React?" is the same as if someone asked "does this truck have a lot of horsepower?" and I replied "I don't know, how much horsepower does this truck have?" I'm echoing the question back at them. It's confusing and they don't understand why I'm doing it, and it's naturally going to make them feel uncomfortable and agitated. Meanwhile the engineer doesn't understand why they someone is getting agitated over their reasonable fact-finding questions and start getting... well confused and agitated.

In general, I actually blame the manager more for this breakdown in communication, and that's where I'd put the majority of my coaching efforts. After all, probably 95% of a manager's job is communication, and I view understanding how to change your communication to establish a rapport with other people working outside your framework to be part of the job (this kind of breakdown can happen a hundred different ways, it's not just neurotypical vs non). Sadly, most managers never getting any kind of training on this, and many (most?) are abysmal at it.

But the fact is both sides of this conversation failed to understand the conversation the other person was having. No one is "wrong" or everyone is.

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

#486

Post by nibbleshifter »

JackFr wrote: post #278
nibbleshifter wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in this case an obvious solution might be to do what your manager suggests simply because he is your manager That is career suicide (unless you make sure to get it in writing every single time). As a knowledge worker you are paid to not just be a yes man automaton, you are paid to evaluate and push back as needed.

> That is career suicide (unless you make sure to get it in writing every single time). Why would you ever expect your managers to trust us if you don't trust them?

Managers often make poorly planned out technical decisions that are in the best interest of their career, but not the business.

Like changing a framework for an already fully working product, just to have done it.

You don't want to end up holding the bag for that choice when they claim you said it would work when it invariably overruns.

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

#487

Post by larve »

KronisLV wrote: post #481
larve wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the topic of filesystems: for me, hardware storage systems, file systems, operating systems, user library, filesystem caching, file formats, persistence guarantees, recovery, that stuff is really complicated. I just can't say that it's simple, because to me it never will be. Maybe it's simple for the other person, but I don't understand why "giving in" helps any of us in this case. I just won't say "writing a file…

Hah, that's a fair point. Whenever someone tries to figure out how to store files, I'm usually inclined to just point them in the direction of S3 to attempt to at least minimize some of the eventual issues of dealing with files. You know, even MongoDB GridFS or binary blobs in RDBMSes could be less problematic options, rather than dealing with inodes, maximum file path lengths, file name constraints, storing metadata…

Once you involve the cloud, things get exponentially more complicated. Your `fwrite(foobar)` has ramifications that no human can legitimately understand.

That's what I meant with . I am happy to write `fwrite(foobar)` and get the project going, but it's not simple, and there might be very valid reasons to not do just `fwrite(foobar)`. If you don't want me to even mention these, then I'm out.

Otherwise, I will fully engage. I'm really a pragmatist when it comes to getting stuff done. Anything getting shipped is better than nothing getting shipped, and I will maintain it for as long as it needs to.

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

#488

Post by larve »

Volundr wrote: post #485
gongador wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your questions instead sound like you are doubting him. Respectfully, I disagree: _to you_, the "questions instead sound like you are doubting him". Maybe it even sounds that way to most people. It doesn't to me. I have been in very similar situations, and having experienced the frustration of communications failure, I've tried to take other approaches. A few times I've prefaced my questions with something along th…

I'm hesitant to reply further in this thread because I get the feeling I've made some people feel attacked and criticized which is not my intent, but I really don't think the issue here is the neurotypical manager's inability to admit they are wrong. Everyone in this conversation is wrong. Everyone believes that both sides of this conversation are having the same conversation, when instead each side is having a diffe…

I fully agree with this.

I brought this example up because clearly there is a problem here. But, no one is wrong, and shutting down the conversation as "you just can't admit when you are wrong" is not productive for anyone (since no one is wrong). Maybe the conversation will go nowhere, and because I might be completely oblivious to that fact (I try to be, but it's a lot of work), it helps if the manager, whose job it is to facilitate communication, becomes aware of what is going on, and says "I know you are trying to establish context, but it sounds like you are just echoing my questions back at me. I actually want a list of reasons why YOU think it is a good or bad idea. I won't mind if you assume things; we can clarify that later". I have absolutely no problem being interrupted that way; that makes a lot of sense and helps everybody. Once I know people won't mind me riffing without making absolutely sure we are talking about the same thing, I can go with that just fine.

This assumes good faith and open-mindedness on both sides. Assuming I am being arrogant, dismissive, know-it-all, won't back off, can't admit I am wrong, when I am trying not to, helps nobody.

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

#489

Post by joshuamorton »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #471
jrochkind1 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because sometimes people aren't going to agree. Now what? somebody's going to have to go along, aren't they? The person who is the most bull-headed about not giving in isn't actually more likely to turn out to be right. And because I know I might be wrong even though I don't think I am, I've been mistaken about that before, that's literally what being wrong is . Sometimes when I'm wrong I am not going to realize it f…

The interesting thing about your argument is that the most bull headed person is the least likely to participate in the suggested manner. The attitude seems it will only exacerbate the number of times the Bull headed win for their bull headedness and the number of times the submissive people submit.

It depends, if the world contains only the two people, sure. But there are other people: teammates, managers, executives. Being able to say "look I'm happy to compromise when I think its not important, but in this case it is important" is compelling, and having a pattern of actual willingness to compromise goes a long way towards convincing third parties that you're not being obstinate for no reason.

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

#490

Post by throwawayblah54 »

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…

There are two different things being discussed here, and it's creating a disconnect.

The first is, "Can autistic people admit they are wrong when they themselves know deep down that they are?"

The second is, "Can autistic people be easily convinced that they are wrong?"

I'd say most commenters are expressing a "no" to #2, but your replies retreat to #1. I.e. you say that once you know you are wrong, you find it easy to admit it. However, given the content of your article, I'd speculate that it is very difficult to actually convince you that you are wrong in the first place.

Post reply on HN