How Studying Body Language Changed the Way I Socialize

I think that's a hasty generalization.

Some people are merely introverted, and can improve their social intelligence through everyday practice. Others, however, actually have a neurological condition (i.e. Asperger's Syndrome, which the article mentions). At least for some subset of them, "social intelligence" is little more than analytic intelligence applied to something that has a very low signal-to-noise ratio. You can discern the signal from time to time if you concentrate hard enough, and you can put an abstraction layer on top of all the analytic processing so that the result looks somewhat like "social intelligence". But at bottom, it's always like trying to do floating-point calculations on a processor that was only designed for integer calculations. It's inefficient by many orders of magnitude, because you have to fake every step.

Of course, there isn't a clear line between an introverted neurotypical and an Aspie. But just because the transition is gradual doesn't mean that the difference doesn't exist.

It makes me sad whenever an article like this uses the word "Asperger's" to describe typical introverted programmers. (This is a complaint about the article, not the parent comment.) It also makes me sad to read comments that make excessively broad generalizations about how people (should) acquire social intelligence. (This is a complaint about the parent comment.) Overgeneral advice, even if well-intentioned, could give neurotypicals the misleading idea that Aspies behave like they do because of their own fault (lack of effort).

Nowadays, we often throw around psychiatric terms to describe behavior that falls within the normal range. "I'm feeling ADHD today." "He's a bit of an Aspie." "She acts as if she has bipolar disorder when she's drunk." etc. Although some of these are meant to be comical and we all have some use for metaphors and exaggerations, we should be careful not to make serious generalizations based on such informal usage of terms.

Obviously, neurotypicals get the benefit of the doubt for "how people should be", since there are so many more of them. But we don't ask gays to be straight, despite not being "normal", numerically, so why should we ask Aspies to be more empathetic? Why assume an Aspie is broken, by default? Where's the proof that lack of empathy is a problem for anything other than working with neurotypicals?

I can't help but wonder that the future might not actually belong to neurotypicals. That, perhaps, the Aspie mutation might be better adapted to a world that is becoming more and more computerized and less and less hospitable to neurotypicals.

For example, consider Zynga. How many normals are completely wasting their lives and earnings on an objectively stupid social game because their normal, empathetic minds have been hacked to "like" and see value in it? We all can see that it's sad, and yet we know there's virtually nothing that can be done for them, short of banning those games. They simply cannot adapt, where Aspies can (and have).

Neurotypicals seem to think Aspies have "anti-social" lives, but those I've met seem pretty happy. And at least from my perspective, are really straightforward to get along with, if you can understand their behavior and not take offense and what would normally be a slight in neurotypical-land.

Perhaps trying to turn Aspies into neurotypicals is really only beneficial today because most of the world is normal, so Aspies, to some degree, need to work with neurotypicals if they are to achieve anything.

But how long will that be true? When will a critical mass of Aspies exist, or the world become hospitable to them despite not having to pretend to be neurotypicals?

And what then? Do we continue to try and "make the gays straight", so to speak? Or do we realize that an Aspie is just as valid a way to live as anything else, and not a disability to be overcome?

It's strange to see evolution happen right in front of us. I don't have any answers, but these are the thoughts that have occurred to me for some time now, and I thought I'd share.

I had the good fortune in my 20's of hanging around an uncle who was amazingly charismatic - the type that lights up the room, as they say. I tried to emulate him for a while and of course it never really worked all that well for me. But I did become more aware of my own habits. Before that I had always thought I was a pretty considerate person. It took some self analysis to realize that I was pretty stingy with compliments and I didn't really take much interest in what other people were doing. I didn't do thoughtful things for people very often. A lot of times I think I still don't do enough but I'm a lot more aware of it now. The sad thing is that it really doesn't take that much. Some people seem to get it earlier than others but it took me into my 20's before I really became aware of how I treated other people.

First, there is the issue of merit. It seems like this grants those with good social intelligence an "unfair" advantage, since the skills involved aren't involved in actually creating/fixing/understanding anything concrete; its power comes from its ability to persaude, detect, and signal. Some perceive this sort of skill as seeming fake and superficial.

Second, it flies in the face of the idea of radical honesty and transparency, as it deals with situations and ideas having to do with saying one thing (or nothing at all) but meaning another. This feels very dishonest, and ugly. Some would like to live in a world where absolutely everything is completely explicitly stated, and no one gets offended, but uses everything said as a learning experience. This may seem naive (because the ability to think and say things others may find subjectively offensive is great), but the desire persists nonetheless.

I'm personally torn on the subject, as both ways have their serious negatives, but it's worth stating here anyway.