I don't think there were necessarily saying that John just said a load of nonsense that didn't answer the question, just that it needed a bit of deciphering; that Sam helped explain what he meant to a non-fan.
I don't think there were necessarily saying that John just said a load of nonsense that didn't answer the question, just that it needed a bit of deciphering; that Sam helped explain what he meant to a non-fan.
But the autistic version seems perfectly valid, and shouldn't a reporter recognize a direct answer to his question and ask a follow-up if needed? I get the feeling instead he just stared blankly until someone else translated for him...why blame the autistic person for the reporter's poor communication?
this specific sort of difficulty communicating is a daily reality for many autistic folks
I believe that communication can often be fixed by either party, but is usually fixed by neither
Edit: why disagree? Not recognizing that someone wants more information, or that your communication doesn't carry enough context for a person to know what you're talking about is classic autism. If you're someone without autism and just care about the subject, you're more likely to recognize the social cues and add more context.
It's not like neurotypical people don't also experience this frustration with having to divine what people actually desire in any given quantum of communication. I would even offer that people speaking with those on the spectrum might be primed to be less generous and forgiving with that anticipatory instinct; they jump to, "This person is weird," instead of considering the ways in which their own communication style is wanting. The reason they can get away with it, and autistic people can't, is simply a matter of how many people like them are around to validate their subjective experience. See your given CS department/TTRPG club for the flipside of this dynamic.
EDIT: Might also explain the phenomenon of smug, "What you ACTUALLY wanted was-" responsed on SO. We've trained people with precise thought to assume that anyone coming to them with questions doesn't actually know what they're trying to accomplish. We've created monsters.
There is something called "double empathy problem", referring to the idea that there is a mutual difficulty communicating across neurotypes. Neurotypical people struggle to understand autistic people because of a sort of "language barrier" even without a deficit in neurodivergent communication skills per se.
After all, if neurotypical people are universally great communicators, they would be better at communicating with autistic people than autistic people are, but that's not how it works at all.
Thank you for the link and explanation.
This has been getting better over the past decade: I think increased access to science is making it easier for the subjects to learn about the "research" and say "hang on, this is nonsense". On the flipside, though, bigots have increasingly been picking the worst theories from the literature and using them as an excuse to do bigoted stuff. (e.g. you still see lots of people claiming that autistic people "have no theory of mind", because they don't understand that ethics are suspended when nobody's looking)
The expectation isn’t disordered, it's carrying with it implied social expectations (technically it would need to go against these to be disordered). The problem is that neurodivergent people tend to not pick up on the implied expectations and neurological people don't tend to notice that they need to be more explicit with thier expectations.
"What they actually should have asked was, "What happened during your favorite episode?", which might have produced the response given by the sibling."
Why is that what they should have asked? The initial exchange is technically correct. The asker should have said they didn't know that one and asked a follow-up question of what happened in it. Asking what happened in their favorite episode as the first question isn't necessary and isn't the general social flow of conversation.
I do agree on the second paragraph.
Neurotypical communication 101 is that a casual conversation question about your favourite things is probably a cue for you to be enthusiastic and effusive about things you care about rather than a prompt for you provide names only, especially if the interlocutor is unlikely be evaluating your preferences using their own expert knowledge of the field. Sure, if nobody else steps in to provide further context any [neurotypical] interlocutor ought to be able to continue/rescue the conversation by asking followup questions about what happened in an episode and what is it about that episode that you like, but staccato answers offering a bare minimum of information is a communication preference (occasionally appropriate, more often not) rather than something inherently demanded by the question.
(I'd agree that people probably judge responses slightly differently if they already know the person on the other side of the conversation is autistic, but in a situation like this it can work in their favour, since if I assume the person providing only names, titles and one word answers to my open and friendly questions is neurotypical, I'm going to assume they're subtly signalling that they dislike me...)
Which is probably worse.
As the other reply mentioned, there is an empathy (double empathy) problem, but the answer is not for one party to have to assume responsibility for the other's comfort entirely by having to guess all of their unspoken emotional desires for the conversation. "The query explicitly didn't include [...]" is kind of a ridiculous thing to expect someone to respect or even predict.
Also, I don't mean to pick apart your comment, but:
>Neurotypical communication 101 is that a casual conversation question about your favourite things is probably a cue for you to be enthusiastic and effusive about things you care about rather than a prompt for you provide names only
I don't know that this is true. If anything, doing this seems to get on their nerves.
No, it changes it from "if you would be interested in hearing anything other than the briefest and least informative answer, it's your responsibility to explicitly state how much information you expect and in what form" to "of the vast set of theoretically possible answers, those which take into account what will be meaningful to the other person are generally better, although it's entirely understandable and expected that autistic people might not be able to do this".
And the article here wasn't insisting autistic people should make conversations flow or that neurotypical people shouldn't ever modify their expectations or followup questions, it made the simple observation that the high-functioning autistic twin has actually learned to do this, pattern matching well enough to provide additional context on behalf of his brother (who apparently regularly struggles to form sentences, presumably even when the question explicitly demands it). I think the conclusion that this is because one of the autistic identical twins has developed better communication skills than his brother (who quite possibly has other learning difficulties) is correct, and it definitely isn't an example of his brother being trapped in a world where all human communication except children's TV is just too imprecise for him.
> I don't know that this is true. If anything, doing this seems to get on their nerves.
There is a happy medium between staccato answers and relating the entire plot of the episode or insisting that all other shows pale in comparison with it, and a difference between bringing up $nichepursuit because someone asked and bringing it up because they were talking about something else. And yes, this happy medium is going to be more difficult for people on the autistic spectrum to recognise. But even excessive enthusiasm about something most people find extremely boring is more endearing than repeated one or three word responses that technically answer the question.
Even if talking to another fan, a 'less autistic' dialogue might be like:
B: Oh, me too, do you have a favourite episode?
A: Abby Makes the Seasons Change, hands down, do you remember that one?
B: Hmm, I'm not sure..
A: Oh, it's the one where [...]
> It's definitely autistic to name drop the title to an audience of adults who likely don't remember
If someone asks me to name an episode I'll assume they know the show, and that the name is sufficient. Because they asked for only that. Why can questions have an implicit "and tell me about it", but the answers cannot have an implicit "I assume you know which one it is"?
If you want to know something, ask it. Not everyone wants (or is able) to bother with deciphering what you think internally.
The person in the article has many issues. But I don't consider giving straight answer to a straight question being one of them.
People expecting others to conform to their way of communication without making an effort to meet others halfway are the main issue.
One of my colleagues recommended that our department invite somebody from outside to explain to us about "neurotypical" people so we can better accommodate their special needs at work. We don't seem to have many "neurotypical" people so hence the idea to get an outsider to do a talk.
Maybe one of the things it would be good to understand is, are there actually lots of these "neurotypical" people or are they just bad at counting ?