Hacker News Reader

When an input-filter person talks to an output-filter person, the speaker might sound overbearing, arrogant, or impolite. When an output-filter person talks to an input-filter person, they might sound smarmy and unwilling to convey essential information.

I wish there were a safe place for such people to communicate online. Getting downvoted every time you say something you perceive as completely innocent is quite tough.

That's why you have an input filter. :)

Personally, I feel like I'm not doing anything worthwhile if I'm not saying down-votable things. My internet points are the currency I use to say things that I know people will disagree with, but that I believe are worth serious consideration anyway. If I am being up-voted all the time, I would probably be in an echo chamber posting affirming memes.

I feel similarly. I point out facts that contradict the popular narrative and get regularly downvoted for it, but it's important to post such things.

I'm not interested in hearing solely from people who agree with me, either.

Unfortunately, that well has been pretty badly tainted by people who intentionally fake ignorance for trolling purposes or to spread unpleasant perspectives.

The Internet is dominated by people with no output filter, from Reddit to Twitter and more.

My sister was diagnosed with autism late in life. It never seemed like a good fit to me because she has a wide range of disabilities but excellent communication skills. This "input filter" description rings so true. This is absolutely the way she operates. Thanks!

I recall reading a while back that there is in fact a "too much emotion" school of thought on autism. The idea is that the autistic learn to totally deaden their emotions as a defense mechanism because the alternative is too intense and painful. Maybe it's the neurological opposite of psychopathy?

I wish it were, but I've met at least one person who I think is both psychopathic and on the spectrum. Mind you, I'm not a psychiatrist and am unqualified to make diagnoses.

Really it is more a matter of expression and reading - they're still there but not expressed in the same way nor your cues and conventions picked up necessarily. Just because their tone may not convey it doesn't mean they have deadened emotions - that is depression.

Think of it like a cat vs a dog wagging a tail. Usually a cat with a wagging tail is agitated - a dog with one is happy. Just because a cat with a wagging tail swats at you doesn't mean they are happy to attack - it means they are stressed out and you disregarded their clear signal!

I say usually because there are outlier cases that learn the other conventions. See Tally the Husky for an example who even does the "cat-loafing" pose of hiding all legs while sitting.

I suspect the "too much emotion" is a misguided attempt to spin a negative into a positive. I think it's more accurate to say that autistic people have "more emotion than they can manage" -- trouble managing (or lack of instinct for how to manage) their emotions to express them in socially acceptable ways, so they either feel overwhelemed because they don't know how to express emotions effectively, leading to either "yelling silently" (which creates a feeling of isolation from people they want to connect with) or outburst that scare people away (leading to real isolation), or both.

Jeez, maybe I'M on the spectrum. That describes me a lot.

It's common for those more 'high-functioning' - i.e. more able to 'mask' in society - to not receive a diagnosis until much later in life. Anthony Hopkins was not diagnosed til late in his life [1].

I mentioned it already elsewhere in this thread, but if you want to explore things further it may be worth taking the RAADS-R [2]. While the test itself, and self diagnosis in general, is in no way comprehensive, it may help, and can be the first step towards a diagnosis.

[1] https://eu.desertsun.com/story/life/entertainment/people/bru...

[2] https://aspietests.org/

I took one a while back that was 25 or over need to go see a specialist, I scored 43.

I never did, I function fine and one advantage to been a programmer is none-techies expect you to be eccentric.

I don't think I am but it's good top cover.

> At the Culver City office, overhead lights bothered one or two colleagues so much that everyone agreed to work without artificial lights, so that often, by the end of the day, they are all working in pitch darkness, rectangles of soft, bright light from their computers illuminating their faces.

Oh crap. I chose the quiet office without windows over the noisy office with windows, then I took all but one of the bulbs out of the overheads and put a lamp on my desk.

The email thing hit a bit too close to home, I always worry about the tone and whether I'm been too blunt, my boss has commented (not disparagingly) that I can be direct, I asked if that meant rude but apparently not, just direct.

Wait, does anyone not worry about the tone if the relationship is not super-casual?

I rarely worry about tone in any established relationship. I don't feel like that is particularly unusual.

To add, its not even something that presents itself the same way at different stages of life. Many high functioning folks had a lot of very classic troubles early in life with sensory overload, anxiety and missing social cues, but have eventually developed filters and coping mechanisms to have a lot less of a problem as they grow older, even to the extent that its a "hidden" feature that causes trouble to the person but nobody would suspect. It comes out in the form of staying home for an anxiety attack, depression, or occasional social cue slips.

Holly... scored 151, should i go and do something with this?

I don't know about the scores/thresholds of this particular test, but the best way to know for sure is getting evaluated by a trained professional.

I got 173 lol

dunno, have a look..

https://mirror.cat/1a9OzXi

It's a spectrum so you are on it pretty much by definition. It just depends on the degree. I also have a lot of autistic traits but I also have extrovert traits and I am also shy. We should stop labelling people on one dimension.

I've seen posts from families with autistic children saying, effectively, "just because it's a spectrum doesn't mean you're on it".

Personally that seems wrong, it seems like particular traits compound together and that people exhibit fewer/more of those traits to a greater/lesser degree.

Not sure what the professional psychs think about it currently?

I really don't mean to be a dick here, but aren't these two statements in conflict?

1. If you've met one person on the spectrum, you've met one person on the spectrum. The range of non-neurotypicality is extremely broad and highly individualized.

2. Most spectrum people have input filters instead, developed to keep them from being hurt by the world.

This isn't a leading question, as I don't really know enough about the subject to have an opinion. But I'm generally skeptical of all message board commentary about autism. So I'm not saying you're wrong, I would just need more convincing before I'm persuaded that most autistic people have "input filters" to prevent them from "being hurt by the world."

More generally I can see why grouping people into "output-filter" types and "input-filter" types might be a good faith exercise in empathy...but is it actually true? Going back to your first statement, you're talking about autism as something highly individualized. How is this compatible with an idea that seems to suck all nuance out of it, like a binary grouping?

I also have a problem with Gadson's claim:

“People with my type of disorder, it’s not that we don’t have emotion,” Gadson said. “It’s that we have too much emotion. We can’t push that stuff back.”

On one hand I can see why this is an attractive idea, for the same reason we'd want to empathize with "input-filter" people. On the other hand I see two problems. First, is Gadson's claim a useful one? When people perpetuate the stereotype that autism causes emotionlessness, do they actually care about the interiority of the person or are they talking about behavior? If what they're trying to communicate is in regards to behavior, I don't think Gadson responds to the heart of their meaning; which is probably something more like, "I'm uncomfortable around autistic people because they're robotic and unsympathetic" (NB I'm not expressing a personal belief here). In a very real sense they're still right despite Gadson's reply, because they're talking about behavior and Gadson is talking about a rich interiority.

The second problem I see with Gadson's comment is that it seems like he's generalizing autism again. Do all or most people with autism want to be described by the comment, "I actually have too much emotion"? Would they consider that mostly correct, a gross oversimplification, a useful or useless oversimplification, or wrong outright? It seems like no matter what we do, we can't get away from the problem of a few people speaking for everyone when it comes to autism.

I don't think you're a dick, I think I didn't convey my point well enough.

I picked one column off of a matrix and pointed out that most people considered to be "on the spectrum" have a high value here, whereas most neurotypical folks have a low value in that cell. That's not the only difference, it's just one that's easy to pick out. But it's also not a guaranteed indicator: if you've got an input filter and no output filter but you aren't actually on the spectrum, you can change the value there relatively easily. Read Dale Carnegie and a couple of books on communication styles and practice for a week or two: boom, you've switched over.

People on the spectrum can't do that easily. Instead of being a skill that they just haven't picked up, it's a method of analysis that takes a lot of work, remembering all the rules all the time.

Except, of course, there are people who find it more or less hard, and have put more or less work into it, so the results vary. Lots of gradations.

As to Gadson's comment: it is actually helpful from the perspective of neurotypical people who are trying to empathize with spectrum people, because it provides a reasonably useful metaphor for them to work in. The general perspective is called the Intense World theory of autism.

It can lead you to good analysis which yields workable solutions: by reducing the need for strong input filters, they can free up brain resources for doing what needs to be done. Environmental noise? Visual distractions? Organizational improvements? Working with everyone's strengths improves everyone's outcomes.

As to "I actually have too much emotion" as a descriptive phrase: if you take out the negative connotation of "too much", yes, I think it does describe one aspect of autism really well. "I feel things more intensely than neurotypical people do, and as a result I want to/have to block things out" might be a more universal description.

> Read Dale Carnegie and a couple of books on communication styles and practice for a week or two: boom, you've switched over.

Please don't trivialize challenges of NT people. It is hard for ANYONE to make significant behavioral changes. In particular the evidence is that 'self-help' books like the one you mentioned are essentially ineffective.

Of course it's hard to make behavioral changes. That's part of the reason it's such a worthwhile goal.

It might be more effective if they were refactored in to a problem / solution format where it was easier for a reader to self-filter in to matching problem statements, then see a weighted list of correction methods that are more / less effective and try to implement a couple that might work for them.

Mind if I see some of this evidence? Because books really helped me, but only after I got myself into a much more accepting environment first, where I could experiment with the things in the books.

> "I feel things more intensely than neurotypical people do, and as a result I want to/have to block things out" might be a more universal description.

Hmm. And of the things that can cause feelings, people might be at the top of the list, and therefore the first to be blocked out?

Consider your browser fingerprint. Most people use Chrome. Most people use Windows. Most people use English.... but when you combine all those "most"s, you find that you only have a minority of people.

Too much emotion and can’t push it back. How do they know they CAN’T push it back? Serious question.

That’s what people used to say about women throughout history and called the disorder “Hysteria” (just a physical problem caused by the uterus, solved by tittilation by a doctor) until they realized that it was as scientific as bloodletting.

Many people have no idea what they are capable of, in many areas — sports and cognitive taskss included — until they learn a system.

Most people will tell you no way can they remember 1000 digits in a row. But then they learn a system and it becomes second nature.

EDIT: It has been one minute and already the silent knee jerk downvotes have come. No answer just downvote. Before you downvote or shame this comment into not having the appropriate response to autism (ignore the meta irony of “appropriate response” being the issue in the first place) consider how many kids, adults and elderly are overmedicated because the underlying system is causing “disorders”. Whether it’s almost-methamphetamines given for ADD (the “hysteria” of the 21st century) or elderly being medicated in nursing homes for complaining, perhaps people are not as powerless and dependent on medication as they are made out to be. One in four middle aged women is medicating herself with psychiatric drugs in the USA. There is a new opiod epidemic too. This is the new normal — call something a condition instead of dealing with it. An exception may be gender dysphoria, which is dealt with differently.

Instead of medicating the kids for ADHD, consider why your school system makes them sit down and shut up for 8-10 hours a day. Why does Finland magically have far less ADHD? Instead of automatically prescribing medications for depression, perhaps we should re-evaluate a system where people are lonely for years, commuting from their apartment to their work and back, with chronically elevated cortisol levels until their brain adapts.

USA is one of the most overmedicated, and chronically depressed population, exceeding countries with far less wealth. Even countries with long darkness which naturally causes depression have higher levels of happiness than USA. We have no universal healthcare and we have more gun violence and more incarcerated than any other developed country. But of course in every area there are people who say “nothing can be done, shut up, you’re not supposed to point out that other countries and systems have less of these problems. It’s just the way things are!”

This was on a recent Joe Rogan podcast going deeper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dscDPIf0GJI

This is an important comment. People might also be interested in the book Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt Against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life by Allen Frances (who was the chair of the DSM-4 committee)