[Anotheroneagain]

There is no deficit. Their neocortexes haven't died, and they are not insane.

Just like the "intelligent" physicist concocts a theory, and then proves himself completely wrong with an experiment, an "intelligent" man concocts a social conspiracy theory, but nothing proves him wrong: instead, he pronounces those who "don't get it" hopelesly stupid, too socially dumb to participate in a society.

[baq]

This sounds like memespeak cope. There is a deficit from the perspective of other people participating in the society. Yes, nothing died inside. No, it isn’t necessary for anything to be dead for a deficit to exist.

[hiciu]

The double empathy problem explains why it may not be a deficiency, just a "different brain language" between ND and NT people.

Basically, from autistic perspective, it's the non autistic people who have deficiencies in communication. There's been a whole lot of research about that in the last 10-15 years or so. And a lot of memes in the community.

[blueflow]

> it's the non autistic people who have deficiencies in communication

Example: In a Job interview, when you get asked why you did apply. Its the social norm to lie and make up some reason that sounds good, and saying the truth "i need money to pay my rent" makes you the weird one.

People say ND people are blunt and frank... but the other side of the same coin would be that NT people can't talk about facts.

[zozbot234]

> when you get asked why you did apply.

What they're really asking, translated to "blunt and frank communication" mode is: "Why should we even care that you applied?" Then saying "hey, I need money for blah whatever" is non-responsive, but you can just talk about why you think you might be a good fit for them after all.

Much of this stuff is just cultural anyway. There are Western societies where being "blunt and frank" like that is quite accepted or even expected, unlike the U.S. and the Anglosphere more generally.

[saghm]

> What they're really asking, translated to "blunt and frank communication" mode is: "Why should we even care that you applied?" Then saying "hey, I need money for blah whatever" is non-responsive, but you can just talk about why you think you might be a good fit for them after all.

Yes, and that's exactly what's confusing to people like me who have autism; the question being asked isn't actually the question that they're looking for the answer to, and it's up to us to figure out what they actually mean. In this context, it might seem obvious to someone neurotypical, but I don't think I can easily articulate just how common this type of thing happens on a regular basis. The problem for me is that while I might understand what to do in this circumstance due to having encountered it before, it feels impossible to extrapolate what people mean when I'm in a new situation that I haven't had a chance to learn the "rules" for yet. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I've had to separately learn what the expected norms are for pretty much every circumstance I've ever encountered when people say one thing but assume that it's clear that they mean something different.

The fact that most of this stuff is cultural doesn't really change the fact that implicitly learning rules like this is something that most people don't struggle with to the extent that people with autism do. To me, the issue isn't that I specifically want people to be "blunt and frank" or not, but that no one directly communicates what the expectations are, and that it's not as simple as a binary of whether to be blunt or not. Most people might struggle if they suddenly found themselves in a culture where the expectations were different than they were used to, but they probably didn't struggle to learn the expectations of their own culture. For me, learning the expectations of the culture I've spent my entire life in is still an ongoing process after over three decades, and I don't expect that it will ever really be complete.

An culture of all autistic people wouldn't be identifiable merely by how blunt they are, but by the giant binder they give everyone who comes to visit with all of the expectations written out to avoid any confusion. The reason I struggle with communication every day of my life is because I never got that binder, but everyone else seems to already have it memorized.

[lubujackson]

I have experienced these feelings personally, but to bring up a high school metaphor - at some point I realized the popular kids weren't just dumb pretty people but spent a lot more time and mental energy on thinking through how they appear, how others regard them and understanding the social relationship amongst each other.

Realizing this, getting called "socially retarded" wasn't just an insult but somewhat descriptive. My mind was much more focused on other things and I could see and appreciate the result of those social efforts but at the time it seemed too much work and not very fun to bother with.

So I doubt the cause is a lack of ability or capabilities that leads to magical social awareness but actual compounding effort over years and decades. If you talk to a NT person about a situation they say "it's obvious" but if they break it down you see there actually is a richer decision tree underneath where they are empathizing with the other person's perspective and triangulating on their overall objectives and both physical and verbal cues they are providing to guide you one way or the other.

Realizing this means it is a difficult but solveable problem, which I found a great improvement over "I can't" or "they are the weird ones".

Obviously your brand of ND may be different from mind but everyone comes in with different skills as well as interests and focuses. It is best to remember were are ALL neuro-different, it is just a matter of degree and flavor. And also that no of this is innately easy for anyone - humans are social creatures and it makes sense our brains are equipped foe and spend a lot of energy on solving these problems.

[zozbot234]

I think I've made the case above that it's not merely about "being neurotypical", it's also about being steeped in a very specific culture. That peculiar use of "why did you apply" might as well be described as an idiomatic expression, a play on words that happens to be common in that well-defined context. If you aren't familiar with that usage because you are from a different cultural context (or even something as simple as a different "low-class" socio-economic stratum in the same society), you might misunderstand the question in the exact same way - or perhaps you'll grok it but you'll still be bothered by the implied "dishonesty" in it and be inclined to subvert expectations by starting with a straight and to the point answer, and then getting into the actual topic of why you think you were right to apply.

[0u89e]

From the comments I read, you just like rest of bunch are going in the wrong direction by thinking that you have to learn something from others, which logically in your argumentation point to a deficit compared to others, which is very wrong direction. Quite the opposite - autistic people are capable to learn behavior to adapt to others and many are very good at that, but NT would struggle to achieve talent levels of autistic people - they simply have no ability to learn to achieve that level. Also, you seem to be missing the main issue here - autistic people have issues not only understanding NT, but there are more issues understanding other autistic people at which autistic people seem to fail spectacularly(also for the logical flow reasons, the previous sentence would not have sounded as good, but exactly the same struggles for NT are affecting other autistic people achieving talents of other people they can't achieve). The harassment that I am receiving from NT people is rarer than what I would receive from autistic people and I can assure you that by classifying harassment that I would receive, autistic people would pretty much fall under the cathegory of plain stupid at that and I would think that the same observation would be from other autistic people towards me, pretty much because they are trying to limit their responses to what they know or have been thaught without thinking outside of the box on their own.

The issue with communication is not that it is something that is unique to humans, but it is how all the animals are functioning. Other animals are more specialized and their brains are attuned to that specialized behaviour. Autistic peacock that would not understand the requirement for flashy tail would essentially have change in brains that would make it a different peacock species. There are even more trivial differences - fishes that specialize in eating different foods would evolve into different species that would not crossbreed(mostly because they would also evolve different mating rituals). However with humans it is different - while we do not differ on genetical level to be classified as different species, the difference in cultural norms and ceremonial behaviour would make us different species but we can shift and adapt to different cultural environments, so this is something that does not effect us so much, though it still occupies a very large space in our brains.

Anyway, if we are returning to the topic of job interviews, then it has nothing to do with answering the questions correctly - the issue is mainly how would you get along(at least that is what I can extrapolate from successful interviews being in both sides of table). That also applies to other communication fields - generally my understanding with communication failures with other people has come to conclusion that we would not be getting along anyway and the tolerance level from me is not so high and subconciously or even consciously I was the one that was showing disrespect to other person. And that applies to communication between autistic people even more. There is no need to learn answers to these questions at all - if you want to get that route, you are going to set yourself for a failure, because learning questions and how to behave changes rapidly not only among differnt cultures(in a global village that is impossible task), but also among generations... and in the end you need to grow your own backbone, because adapting to virtue signaling(which basically is what society consists) is not how it is done, as you can't run across savanna in a zebra flock avoiding lions all your life. At the end you want for other people to adapt to you or at least acknowledge from hyenas that you are an elephant that wants to eat grass and enjoy the company of other elephants. And at the end we are humans and humans even more than other species want to change environment around us - if you are trying to adapt only, including to other humans, this is going to be a constant failure. Then again, this might not apply to everyone - my struggles are trying to dominate over other people obviously and I have not even decided if that is really something I require.

[wisty]

> What they're really asking, translated to "blunt and frank communication" mode is: "Why should we even care that you applied?"

I think you just made that up.

There can be plenty of things the interviewer could be fishing for. They may want to hear that the candidate really wants to work at this job (and have a "correct" reason - the company, the team, the nature of the job ....). They might want to hear about how it's similar to your previous jobs. It's quote possible they want a specific response, and it's either an intentional or untintentional gotcha.

The interviewer might just have heard it's a good question, and is filling in time, or faking being a good interviewer. They aren't "autistically" trying to get the best candidate, maybe then your interpretation is right and you want to say why you're a good candidate for the job.

[zozbot234]

Why are you assuming that being a good fit would not also include things such as liking the company, the job etc? It's all the same thing anyway, you're right that there might be some cases where that becomes quite relevant. What's not going to be helpful though is answering "hey I just want to make some money and pay my rent" - even though in some sense, that answer might be quite reflective of reality!

[eptcyka]

Lmao, then ask ”Why should we even care?”. I will filter people who lie or can put things straight regardless which side of the interviewing table I am sat.

[sickblastoise]

Chat, are Dutch people autistic?

[Der_Einzige]

4chan seems to privately believe that Germans and all Germanic groups are plagued by ethnic autism. I tongue in cheek believe it given how dry their humor is.

[saghm]

Yeah, at least in my experience as someone autistic, I sometimes joke that everybody else got together and decided on a bunch of rules for how everyone needs to talk to each other going forward, but somehow my invite got lost and I missed my chance to learn them. I don't pretend to have any idea if things would be better or worse for society as a whole if everybody did things the way that would seem more natural to me, but it does seem pretty likely to me that neurotypical people would probably struggle in a lot of the ways I often do.

In a certain sense, this makes the experience of being autistic more frustrating. If there were some definitive flaw someone could point to in my brain that would make communication difficult for me regardless of social norms, that might be easier to come to terms with; the feeling that I'm not actually struggling due to any actual issue other than not being in the majority makes it hard not to feel resentful sometimes though. That being said, it's so hard to conceive of a clean separation between the parts of my personality that I do like and the parts that make me struggle to communicate in a neurotypical fashion that if there were a magic switch I could flip to make me like everyone else (whatever that would mean), I still don't think I'd do it. At the end of the day, it's part of what makes me who I am, and I wouldn't recognize who I'd become without it.

[blueflow]

Is it the majority? For me its always the moral guardian type of person, and they are definitely not the majority.

[saghm]

I'm honestly not quite sure what you mean here (which I guess is fitting given the topic of conversation!). In case what I was talking about might have unclear, when I talk about feeling like the majority of people are different than me, I'm saying the idea of social norms being communicated implicitly, or at least being something most people seem to be able to infer from previous examples. To use the example of the interview given above, someone might be able to explain to me that when I'm asked that question, I shouldn't treat it as literal and instead given an answer that fits the expectation they'll actually have, but if the interview instead asks a slightly different question like "what's one thing you would change about your current job?", someone like me might not realize that this is _also_ not a question where it's good to give an answer like "I wish I got paid more for doing less work". For me, it's impossible to take all of the norms and expectations that I've learned over the years and apply them to an entirely new situation that I'm not familiar with, and that's not something that most people seem to struggle with as much as me.

[Aurornis]

> Example: In a Job interview, when you get asked why you did apply. Its the social norm to lie and make up some reason that sounds good, and saying the truth "i need money to pay my rent" makes you the weird one

This question has been included (not by my choice) in some hiring loops where I’ve been an interviewer.

There are a lot of good answers that are definitely not lies. You see a lot of candidates who actually care about the work they do, the people they work with, and advancing their career.

You don’t even need to pretend you love to work. That’s not the question at all. Good answers include “This role is a natural next step in my career and I could leverage a lot of my experience at past jobs here”

The cynical myth that it’s just a trick question to see who lies the best does not match what I saw. Honestly, it’s not hard to see when someone is treating an interview question (or the whole interview) like a competition to see who can lie the best.

> People say ND people are blunt and frank... but the other side of the same coin would be that NT people can't talk about facts.

That’s a deeply unfair characterizing of “ND vs NT” given then that “neurodivergent” label covers a multitude of different modalities. There are people who identify as neurodivergent in ways that make them obsessively love their work, for example.

I personally don’t think the “neurodivergent” label is very useful any more because most people use it to describe themselves as if everyone “neurodivergent” is just like them and everyone not like them is “neurotypical”, as you’ve done in this comment.

[kmmlng]

Yes, there is additional context that is not explicitly stated in the question. It is clear that you are looking for a job to earn money and live your life and everyone already knows this, so there is no need to talk about. The question is: Why did you apply (here out of all the places you could have applied to)?

[chubbyFIREthrwy]

Good points, I appreciate the perspective! But, as someone probably on the spectrum, I still feel like the point about "NT people can't talk about facts" holds up.

Like, if someone replies, "I need the money etc" why can't NTs better clarify what they mean? For example, "Okay but why this company/role/specialty" as opposed to <alternative>?" If someone lacks the self-awareness to narrow down what they're looking for in a case like that, and just writes off the interviewee as deficient somehow, I'm happy to label the interviewer as being bad at "talking about facts".

I've had a case where I got a similar kind of prompt, and I asked a clarifying question to better get at what he was looking for, and he replied, "Just, whatever you interpret that to mean."

Like, what? You're the one asking the question, and you don't know what you want out of it? You'll knowingly let the interviewee "interpret" it, in a possibly incorrect way?

There was a reddit thread I'll try to find where they were asked "What's your favorite drink" and they replied "water" to which the follow-up was "come on, you can do better than that". A lot of commenters said, "oh yeah obviously that was an attempt to get you to see if you can intelligently defend your preference" or whatever. Okay, but the interviewer can also clarify what they're looking for!

Is it really (always) a bona fide occupational qualification to be able to guess the wishes of someone who's making no effort to express them on their own end?

[Thiez]

It's not rocket science. What is the purpose of the interview? For the company, to find out if you are a good fit for them. The questions must be interpreted in that context.

That you need money is not interesting information to them, that will be true for (almost?) all other applicants too. So when they ask: 'why do you want this job?' they mean 'why do you want THIS job?' so they actually do literally say word-for-word what they mean. So you answer with stuff like why you might like the job, or why it is a good career step for you, or why your skills make you a good fit.

[fvvybfbfbyg]

To be fair being able to understand which facts matter in which situation and which are irrelevant can be a very important aspect of some jobs.

I mean before replying “I need the money" etc. one should consider if that’s not obvious and why would the interviewer care about the information. It’s not particularly subjective.

> who's making no effort

Having to always be very literal and explicit is not very efficient though. That person might prefer spending their time doing something else.

[dooglius]

If you offered minimum wage, do you think those candidates would still accept? If not, then you can deduce that the compensation must be a significant factor, but one that goes unstated.

[Anotheroneagain]

There is NO deficit.

While science allowed the schizophrenics to fix their material related thinking (but they eventually corrupted that anyway) and become somewhat funcional in that regard, they have always stayed socially isolated. As such, all recent history that we are taught is narrated from their perspective. People suffered horribly, until science allowed the people to rise up against THEM. Anything else is at best mentioned as a side note, utter madness, a fringe belief only held by the 95% of the people. They were harmed, opressed, subjugated and gassed, and whatever else, but now they are free.