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

The interesting thing to me is that the statement "autistic people can’t acknowledge when they’re wrong" actually holds some truth in my experience, but it's not from some flaw of character, but the result of the more underlying issue "autistic people can’t endure to accept or reason with statements they don't see as bivalent true".

For people on the spectrum fuzzy, hypothetical, conjectured, and underspecified statements are physically painful. Bad when uttered by others, hence the need to correct them, unbearable when forced to reason with or produce them oneself.

I'm aware that people on the spectrum have a really hard time doing this, but viewing the points from the others viewpoint is still illustrative.

1. The allistic (non-autistic) person is not hearing what I'm saying.

They are hearing, but they didn't come for a perfect lecture/monologue with the beauty of a mathematical proof, they came for a conversation where truth crystallises from the exchange of half truths and fuzzy concepts.

When they come to you with a question on X, they don't come for your train of thought about X, every fact you've accumulated on X and every bit of reasoning tangential to X, showing the full validity and self consistency of X.

They need a conversation where they pose a vague question, get a vague reply with follow-up questions, to which they provide more information, and so on and so forth, until the concepts are crips and bivalent truth can be attained.

Because they do a top down breadth first fuzzy search their brain starts filtering out the very information that your brain deems essential to bottom up depth first process of establishing truth. So while you create "context" they are just zoning out, making affirmative noises and nods for you to continue, and hope that you'll eventually divulge information relevant to what they came for.

2. I need to ask questions before forming an opinion.

The issue is very similar to 1. People don't come to you in need of a solution, with all conclusions laid out and wrapped up. They might have their own half-finished ideas and opinions that they are in the process of forming, and they are coming to you asking a question to form that opinion. You then attempting to form the same opinion by asking more questions just creates a deadlock.

The conversation could have gone like this:

"No, that would be way to expensive." - "Ok thanks, then nevermind."

"We could, but isn't our current website fast enough?" - "Yeah, but we were hoping to attract some additional talent by incorporating interesting technology into our product."

"I guess, but why?" - "I've heard a lot of things about React lately and am not sure what to think of it, but if it's potentially usable for us I should look up on it a bit more."

But that requires acceptance that no opinion or truth might be formed at all.

3. I care more about doing good work than office politics.

Heres the bummer for people on the spectrum, the world is not made of platonic logic, there are sometimes no rights or wrongs, even with Bayesian reasoning given two different priors the same observation can move those priors in contradictory directions. The world is fuzzy, half truths are everywhere and sometimes a tiebreaker is needed, or the answer to a question is not worth exploring. Giving in acknowledges these simple property of math and the universe, but for a person on the spectrum this is like acknowledging a Lovecraftian horror:

“The piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”

4. The person underestimates how much I know about the topic.

While people in IT have a general tendency to underestimate others, I'm certain that a lot of them do know. It's just a combination of 1. and 3. They don't require the convex knowledge hull of the topic, because either they know already, because it's not relevant, or because there is no clear cut answer. Sometimes they know that their position is a gross oversimplification, or that their metaphor is actually contradictory, but it helps them think in the context of their self inconsistent reasoning process which, unlike classical logic, might actually come to valid conclusions from inconsistent assumptions.

The take away from this is that I can probably help myself and my spectrum colleagues by writing questions and requests more appropriate to them, with clearer mental paths, more crisp concepts, preferably by e-mail with a very explicit description of what response I need. Maybe I should also use the phrase "humor me" a lot more to acknowledge that what I'm asking is inconsistent and doesn't necessarily make sense from their perspective.

I'd hope that the author would take away from this, that they don't have to be factually wrong in order to respond in the wrong way. Sometimes giving in and kindness just means having the same non-judgmental understanding for the needs and thought patterns of others, that they expect for themselves.

Edit:

There's actually research that quantifies this https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00283...

This is the typical "improve society vs improve yourself" discourse. We should absolutely be in favor of changing society to make neurodivergent people's lives easier. This requires changing education policy, as well as increasing the diversity of communities so that children get more experience communicating with more kinds of people, and it'll probably take a few generations at the least before we start seeing major societal shifts, but it's a worthwhile effort.

In the meantime, it's not a bad idea for an individual person to improve their soft skills, just to make their own life easier. For the individual neurodivergent person, learning how to effectively communicate with neurotypical people is a more effective short-term strategy than waiting for all of society to adapt.

Regarding the concrete example: IMO these questions have nothing to do with being autistic. They are product 101 questions to ask before jumping into a rash rewrite, and the manager in this example took the author's sensible questions poorly. Speculation: perhaps it was not the content of the questions themselves that set off the manager? IDK.

I'd venture that the majority of mid+ engineers ask these questions out of habit. That is, if such a proposition even makes it to them. A good product manager would ask these questions well before the proposal even made it to engineering.

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, as the tutor, to communicate in a way that gets through to them. The ability to communicate your ideas easily and concisely is something you can learn.

Here's a good list of books, although I have not personally read all of them. https://socialself.com/blog/books-improve-social-skills/#6 At the end of the day though, real world experience is the easiest. Volunteering has been my favorite thing to do to get to know new people and practice my social skills.

I do not agree with the generalization of the author about all allistic people having the exact weakness outlined in the post. Effective communication is skill non-neurodivergent people work on to master too. What I'd argue is that allistic people learn more easily because they have a feedback loop they can rely on to self correct and autistic people need more clear examples to learn from.

"I don't care much for saying false things to appease someone's ego. In cases like this, I'm not the one who can't acknowledge being wrong." is just a very cold approach to social interactions. There's a time and place for when that kind of clinical approach is necessary, but it's not appropriate for every social interaction.

This was a big red flag for me, too. There’s a reason the term “bike-shedding” exists among developers.

You want to keep the bikes dry, and what color you paint the shed, or whether you call the paint “tan” or “beige,” matters not at all. Labeling people who disagree with you about the paint color as “bullies,” and fighting them to the death, is profoundly useless. Just ask yourself what really matters, and let the rest go.