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

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

#461

Post by sebastianconcpt » Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 2:00 PM UTC

Invictus0 wrote: post #340

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #336

A lot of the problems mentioned here are absolutely an issue for every intelligent human being, and not at all exclusive to autistic people. It might be more annoying to them? That I don't know but is hell of annoying for anyone that is high in industriousness. I'm specially annoyed when the interlocutor puts the burden of his own lack of understanding in you when you're trying to make a point across. If they secretl…

I don't think it's fair to assume the counterparty here is a "toxic interlocutor". Communication is hard, very hard, and engineers typically suck at it. And it is absolutely the burden of the speaker to communicate their ideas properly to the listener; it sounds like you're saying "the way I explained it is good enough for me so if you didn't get it you're an idiot". Finally, "secretly declared war on your idea"? Thi…

I'm with you in not always assuming the worst.

Not at all.

I'm also with you in that communication is hard and people high in industriousness and analytical can easily have a hard time with communication. Specialist have to pay attention to not forget how is it to communicate with "normal people" and speak more languages than nerdese.

Said that, I really don't think that evil has to be underestimated one bit. Ill intentions do exist.

Also, political agendas and ideological possession are brutally strong motivators for "secretly declaring war on your idea". Cancel culture is an obvious expression of that once you remove the secretive part of it and becomes overt instead of covert.

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

#462

Post by antasvara » Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 2:02 PM UTC

xSxY3fj5gVCmvWE wrote: post #21

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.

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.

The frustrating part was that this was framed as "any time I'm wrong, it's simply a miscommunication." The author barely acknowledges that they can be wrong in the first paragraph, and it's phrased in a way that makes it seem like a legal disclaimer. It's not phrased in a way that implies the author ever believes that they're wrong. Because of this, the entire article is colored by the attitude that any time an autistic person is wrong, it's miscommunication.

I don't need it repeated over and over. That's overkill, not concise, and adds nothing of value to the conversation. Based on the comments I've seen in this thread, it seems clear that this point never made it across, or barely made it across.

This is unfortunate because the actual content of the piece is great. It highlights the ways that people with autism and people without autism can miscommunicate.

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

#463

Post by Beltalowda » Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

larve wrote: post #457

Beltalowda wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to explain, but as a first response it implies "the current code is fine", or "we don't need to do this". That is, you risk it being perceived as a challenge to the idea ("rewrite it in React"), rather than a question to explore the goals. Note that I wouldn't mind such a question at all myself, but others can be more sensitive to such things. Actually, I think "Why? Is the current code not working?" is a p…

Making these kinds of judgments is exactly why autism is a disability. I understand from the comments and my life experience that there is something there, I learned to smile, be engaging, mirror body posture, ask questions instead of going into statements too quickly, but what are you describing just makes no sense to me. How is "what goals would you like to achieve?" not dismissive, but "do you think our checkout i…

Sure, I get all of that. As I touched on in my other comment[1] I had to learn this, too. I think me-from-ten-years-ago would have posted a very similar comment as yours.

Even if it's completely learned scripted behaviour that you don't really understand, that's still a win for everyone involved. But I think that with time and effort a sizeable part (not everyone) of autistic/neurodivergent folk can understand these things at least to some degree too. At least, I was able to and I know some other folks who were too.

> What could help is to realize I am not actually trying to be dismissive, point out that my question might be interpreted as such, and then move on.

Yes, I fully agree; I try hard to look past people's failings in general and not to get upset too quickly at things that don't really matter. But ... people have emotional responses that aren't really rational, and not everyone has that kind of attitude.

And the end of the day – and this really applies to a lot of things – I can't really control other people's behaviour, feelings, or attitudes. The only thing I am in control of is me. So I focus on that, rather than saying "other people need to adjust", because you will have very limited success with that at best.

(This of course doesn't mean we should accept wildly inappropriate or harmful behaviour like, say, racism or other forms of blatant discrimination, just that vague "emotional feelings" like a response to a well-intentioned question are not likely to get "fixed" any time soon across all of society, as these kind of emotions are part of "the human condition").

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32424668

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

#464

Post by denton-scratch » Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 2:23 PM UTC

faeriechangling wrote: post #409

denton-scratch wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the term "spectrum" problematic. Is Asperger's part of the spectrum? Wikipedia says it's an invalid diagnosis. So did all those people with Asperger's just get dumped in the "Autistic Spectrum" bucket? DSoes the spectrum run from ultra-violet to infra-red? Is this a spectrum for which every behaviour pattern has a slot? Does that mean we're all "on the spectrum"? If that's what it means, then that seems like d…

> Is Asperger's part of the spectrum? Wikipedia says it's an invalid diagnosis. So did all those people with Asperger's just get dumped in the "Autistic Spectrum" bucket? This is explicitly what happened. The DSM-V explicitly automatically gives you an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis if you had an Asperger’s diagnosis. I think it’s hilariously how blatantly political this criteria is. As for the legitimacy of spec…

> take a few steps back and look at mental health and psychiatry as a whole.

Indeed.

Consider, for example, the diagnostic criteria for bipolar. There seems to be half-a-dozen conditions wrapped up in that term, not all of which have poles. Not all people with bipolar are psychotic (that is really important; if you're dealing with someone with bipolar, it makes a huge difference if they are subject to delusions or paranoia).

I believe (might be wrong) that "schizophrenia" is now a discredited diagnosis. Even depression is a fuzzy target. How do you distinguish ordinary sadness from depressive illness? Anti-depressant pills seem to work on both. And there's no "chemical imbalance" theory of depression that hasn't been discredited.

My sense is that we haven't progressed much in understanding mental illness since Victorian times, with their diagnoses of "melancholy".

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

#465

Post by trashtester » Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 2:24 PM UTC

engineeringwoke wrote: post #123

trashtester wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a manager comes over and suggests something to you, you need to understand their perspective for coming to that discussion For someone having autism, this may be impossible. If they are open about their autism, one could argue that the manager should be the one trying to see the topic from two sides. One may also need to come up with a shared understanding where the manager has a way to inform the autistic perso…

What I've seen is that engineering departments tend to be engineers all the way down, so you often end up in a situation where the roles are reversed: the IC is neurotypical and the manager is autistic (especially asperger's). And then, there is a lot of difficulty for the non-neurotypical to see anything beyond their "literal place on the totem pole", or their title. They lean on their experience to say what is righ…

Autism and related disorders may in some (possibly most cases) be factors that turn an otherwise good employee into an incompetent manager. This would be one of many factors that a company might want to take into account when promoting to or hiring managers.

If someone is hired into a manager position they cannot perform well for such reasons, a healthy organization should either modify their role or let them find another job.

People with such conditions MAY also be able to learn about their own limitations, and avoid seeing such positions in the first place.

Then there are those who can be quite successful as managers, despite such challenges, either due to side-effects of their systems-oriented thinking or for unrelated reasons. Such people may be difficult to be around, and may require some quite robust people as direct reports, but if the value they generate is sufficient, it may still be good for the company.

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

#466

Post by KronisLV » Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 2:37 PM UTC

larve wrote: post #453

KronisLV wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

ADRs / RFCs are great. Compromise is a necessity for anything where there is no right or wrong answer, only unknoowns with more or less certainty and more or less strongly held opinions. Getting everybody's opinion and insight into a question, documenting it, searching for the best way forward, and then reaching and documenting a compromise, that to me is good engineering. I fully support building things in a way tha…

> 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 something I know is a fact, like "writing a file to disk is a complicated process."

This is where things get a bit more complicated, though.

If you disagree with an approach that the team or certain members might pick, to the point where it blocks progress and they're not intent on budging their own views either, then clearly work cannot continue.

In those situations, there are just a few ways how things might go:

  - neither you, nor them concede, work cannot continue until an external intervention
  - one of you concedes, work continues, good decisions are made and there are no problems down the road
  - one of you concedes, work continues, bad decisions are made and there are problems down the road

So the only option for work to get done, is for one of the people to give in. Since sometimes you cannot always control difficult people yourself (with the resources available to you), it feels to me that giving in to sub-optimal choices is the only option in those cases, short of quitting.

> And I'm ready to quit over that.

This is also a valid choice, though it also probably reflects how hot the job market is in your country, how important having a job is at the present moment, as well as your tolerance or emotional involvement in the project.

Some might jump around various companies until they may or may not find the environment that they're looking for, others might have to temporarily tolerate some bad engineering until another project comes along, others end up feeling miserable when the culture is all bad. I guess it varies quite a bit.

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

#467

Post by dmatech » Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

smugma wrote: post #205

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

Egocentrism is definitely not the same as selfishness. It's just an inability to understand that other people differ from you.

In fact, it's possible to be highly egocentric and altruistic at the same time. You see this with parents who might deeply love their children but can't understand how their child's perspective might differ from their own. They might think their kids have the same likes and dislikes as they do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism

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

#468

Post by gongador » Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 2:42 PM UTC

Noos wrote: post #432

larve wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The questions you bring up are really the questions I am asking? What do they think the weaknesses of the page are? Do they think rewriting the checkout will solve these problems? How much of the technical tradeoffs do they understand or care about? To recap: Is our checkout page not performing well? Will a new checkout solve our problem? Why do they think a technology change is a solution? Do they understand the imp…

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 the lines of: "In order to answer your question I'm going to have to ask some questions; a few of them may not make sense to you, but it's just the way I function".

It has not helped. One time it was met with a kind of "gee, here you go again, giving a lecture on how special you are."

The crux of the matter is that I _need_ to do that if I am going to give a helpful answer to the question that I was asked. Either the manager's question is important and warrants a thoughtful reply, or it's unimportant, in which case almost any kind of reply is ok.

I think the problem, in a nutshell, is neurotypical people's absolute refusal to acknowledge when they're wrong -- for example about what a normal way for an employee to respond to the question: "should we switch to React?" is.

There _is_ no normal way. But neurotypical people, stereotypically, labor under the incorrect assupmtion that there is one. And the discussion in this thread has, in my opionion, made that extremely evident.

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

#469

Post by apricot13 » Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 2:52 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #359

> However, "giving in" is not the same as acknowledging when you are wrong: it is simply playing mind games—games I am not interested in playing. > There is more to life: I am an engineer; I like solving problems. I embrace fairness and open intellectual exchange. This matters to me a whole lot more than getting promoted. Plus, "giving in" does not preserve peace—it simply appeases bullies and makes the workplace tox…

> Sometimes insisting on arguing everything out forever every time you think you are right is what is in fact accidentally being a bully and making the workplace toxic.

What one person considers arguing is not always considered arguing from another's perspective. (I don't want to label the sides here because I think definition varies neurodivergent or not)

From the examples given it sounds like the author views the conversation as a beginning middle and end before they can make a judgement, but the person asking them the question is only expecting the end part so theres a misunderstanding.

Generalising here body language is different in autistic people, tone of voice, social cues and manner of speaking, depending on how well that person can mask might affect how their attempt to understand the problem is perceived.

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

#470

Post by gongador » Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

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…

To clarify: sure, I'm wrong in the sense that there is a normal way if we by 'normal' mean 'most people do it like this'. Unfortunately, 'normal' almost always also carries a meaning of 'the proper way'.

Also, something that's normal (in the sense of 'most common') in, say, the US is not necessarily normal in, say Norway or Thailand or Zambia.