[zahlman]

Such a large fraction of human communication is non-verbal (and, unless you're actively studying this sort of thing as a neurodivergent person trying to fit in) unconscious that it's hard for me to imagine this working very well on average. The LLM simply couldn't possibly get enough relevant input. And even emotional reactions purely to words are informed by context that the LLM didn't experience and the user won't know was important, so the LLM can only wildly speculate.

I'd like to encourage you to resist the "what I did wrong" framing, because it's definitely not a given that you did anything wrong in any given circumstance. Sometimes neurotypical people are just completely unreasonable, and sometimes they will try to manipulate you (and each other).

The strange part to me is that neurodivergence is commonly explained in terms of inability to see things from another point of view (see the classical "what will X person say is in the box?" test). But supposedly neurotypical people demonstrate what seems to me like a stunning lack of empathy (or more generally, ability to comprehend other worldviews) all the time. Especially when politics is involved.

[LooseMarmoset]

I think the problem is that non-divergent people really cannot comprehend an inability to perceive non-verbal communication. Nonverbal communication is like breathing, or eating - it's something that just works for them; they don't have to think about it. It's scary and weird to them when they meet people that can't do it.

Then there are those of us for whom social situations are a 3-billion-line case/esac statement.

  case situation in
    shesmiledandlaughedafterthejoke)
      shelikedthejoke()
    ;;
    shesmiledandlaughedafterthejokebutlookedsideways)
      shesboredanddidntlikethejoke()
    ;;
    thejokewasfunnyoncesoitmustbefunnyeverytimeeven200times)
      crashandburn()
    ;;
    etc)
    ;;
  esac

people just see what, to them, is obnoxious or boorish behavior. So, divergent people must first understand that they are divergent and what that means, and then they must try to put themselves in the shoes of the people they interact with. Is it fair? Life isn't fair - but you either want to fit in and interact reasonably, or you don't.

Somehow, I managed to get married. My wife helped me understand what I was missing - it was like gaining eyesight after never having it or even understanding eyesight was a thing people had.

Yes, many people lack empathy. That is no excuse for you (or me!) to learn and use empathy.

[paulryanrogers]

> But supposedly neurotypical people demonstrate what seems to me like a stunning lack of empathy (or more generally, ability to comprehend other worldviews) all the time.

IME religion facilities this phenomenon. In-group members (esp men) get forgiveness and freedom from consequences (perhaps conditioned on saying magic words). Whilst out-groups get "forgiveness" with extra consequences.

[foxglacier]

Do you mean Christianity? Islam is full of consequences for members - it has a system of laws and punishments. It has forgiveness too but some crimes are unforgiveable even by God. Meanwhile, out-groups are more like enemies that sometimes should be killed if they don't cooperate.

[kortilla]

Having some laws for bad behavior doesn’t mean Islam doesn’t let men shirk responsibility. Women are expected to cover themselves because of men being expected to have so little self control.

[foxglacier]

Most western countries also have laws requiring women to cover themselves. It's still a law in either case and still has punishments not "say a prayer and you're off the hook".

[aleph_minus_one]

> But supposedly neurotypical people demonstrate what seems to me like a stunning lack of empathy (or more generally, ability to comprehend other worldviews) all the time. Especially when politics is involved.

Politics is about power fights: whose argument will convince the mass that in this case violence (laws -> state authority) is appropriate or not appropriate.

So even if the other person is able to comprehend other worldviews (which I would claim is actually often, though not always, the case), there exist very strong incentives to ignore these other world views in your actions when politics is involved.

[fragmede]

Freakishly weirdly precise memory that doesn't work in other ways can be used to relayed relevant details to ChatGPT. I'll describe the weird face she made when I said that thing or the exact position of her body and the exact level of pressure with which she touched me on the arm and exactly where on my arm, for example.

As far as the framing, it's helped me realize that actually, hey, sometimes it is their fault and they are being unreasonable and I actually didn't do anything wrong, they just don't like me. I mean yeah, that's also a thing.

[robocat]

Asking ChatGPT for that sort of advice seems like a horrific idea. Trying to learn interactions by written means can only lead to some very alien ideas.

Plus your questions will contain your mistakes, and what you take from any answers would reinforce your misunderstandings rather than correct them.

It's hard to suggest better learning means via the HN medium.

I learnt a lot when I carefully gave attention to a friend I deeply trusted, training my intuition based on their interactions, plus they trusted me enough to sometimes attempt to explain their intuitive reactions.

[fragmede]

Where are these alien ideas are going to come from? Did aliens come to Earth and their complete works got smuggled into the training data for ChatGPT, and not the collected works of humanity? Every poem that's been digitized, every human psychology textbook, every self-help book?

[robocat]

My point is that if you want to understand human interactions, you need to participate in them.

Rationally analysing human interactions via writing and psychology will screw up your leaning.

Children just learn by doing and are only guided in a gross sense.

If you want to understand people, one must learn like a child does.

These my personal beliefs that I apply to myself. Trying to find you some scientific papers would be counterproductive and destroy the point I am making.