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 discover that what I'm pursuing as oh_so_important is in fact not important for the question at hand (then I feel even more stupid, because, not only did I find this of paramount importance, but everyone else didn't even consider it (because it so clearly didn't matter)).
> Because I value learning, I read about 50 technical books every year
If the author reads this, I'd congratulate them on finding the time to do that, but also advice them to maybe read 40 technical books every year, and then read 10 about the topics they clearly do struggle with (social interactions, politics, negotiation, psychology)..
The opinion reads as "I'm right and the world is wrong" to me, maybe because I can strongly relate (except the parts about reading tons of books and being really smart).
I think the author would benefit from realizing that these things they dismiss as irrelevant (mind games/politics) are actually important and beneficial to understand and master (I am not saying it should be that way, but merely point out that it is, in fact that way).
The author may also benefit from investing some of their mental capital (I'm not being sarcastic, they're obviously very intelligent) into learning how to play the games, to figure out neurotypicals enough to communicate with them on their level/terms.
Yes, workplaces need to be accommodating, but in the end, no matter who we are, it's our ultimate responsibility, to ourselves, to learn how to function in this world.
As for the situation where the other party is factually wrong.. Well, yes.. I always imagine this situation, where I have the right of way on my bicycle, and it's the semi-truck that must yield.. There are a fair number of times where being right does not matter.
I didn’t give much information about my life, but I am pretty adept at playing all these games. So much so that I thought there was no way I could be autistic because of how many friends and business relationships I had. Until it hit me that I spent my 20ies doing what you suggest, which is studying the heck out of these things.
But it stops at engineering, where I try to be very open-minded and learn as much as I can. I have to readily accept I am wrong on most of my assumptions because I just couldn’t be a good engineer otherwise. I can be perfectly suave and agreeable discussing anything else. That means I probably know how to play the “acquiesce when you should” game quite well.
But I’m at work because I am blessed to have a job where I get to do what I care about: good engineering. I deliver great value when people understand my way of thinking, and thankfully I have plenty of colleagues that get it.
> 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)"
That's certainly a message I have encountered in some places, and in the first few sentences of this article I thought that's what I might find here.
But unlike you, I quickly concluded that that was not at all the article I was reading. Rather than argue that they were special because of their autism, this author listed highly specific, clearly explained ways in which other people they interact with fail to understand them.
> If the author reads this, I'd congratulate them on finding the time to do that, but also advice them to maybe read 40 technical books every year, and then read 10 about the topics they clearly do struggle with (social interactions, politics, negotiation, psychology).
Did you read the part of the article where the author explained that they do this reading because they find it enjoyable, rather than simply to get ahead?
I didn’t read it as egocentric. The author cares a lot about correctness and delivering high quality work, but the definition of quality or good is very limited in scope.
I don’t doubt the veracity of what the author wrote, but I would guess that if we spoke to the counter-parties, their recollection of certain things would be very different.
How people perceive the world and express themselves vary, and some people don’t jive well. I have a developer on my team who is very literal person, if I say “I could kill that guy”, he doesn’t capture the nuance. But he is brilliant, a friend and trusted colleague. A good leader should get that and adjust.
I cringed reading the article because of how much it reminded me of my younger self in my software engineering career 30 years ago.
For what it’s worth, I think your assessment and advice are both spot-on.
I know the original author is far into his career as well but I think especially as we get more senior that humility and valuing other’s perspectives become as important as the technology. Some of the biggest mistakes I’ve made in my career were from dismissing the ideas of peers.
I like the term "ausplaining" as you've defined it, but I don't think I would ever start using it. If feels like it would end up being used dismissively.
I also find "allistic" feels like a dismissive or slightly derogatory alternative to neurotypical. (To be clear, I do not thing the author was using it that way at all, it is just the reaction the word engenders in me.)
> The author may also benefit from investing some of their mental capital (I'm not being sarcastic, they're obviously very intelligent) into learning how to play the games
I am not aware of any good systematic textbooks on this topic.
I've learned the hard way that caring too much about work related topics doesn't contribute to your happiness.
Company men will replace you if they can do their business math for justification, because they cannot see the technical complexities of the things they are "wanting to be built" for the company.
Even when you can see dependencies of complexities that will break the plan a year ahead of time, and you were right in complaining about it, it doesn't effectively help you as a person.
Being stuck in the past is just the same waste of energy as being angry about it. Hate and anger are infiltration techniques and should be treated as such.
People will always react based upon their own experiences and understanding, and if you actively try to fight the statistics (aka you vs your team) you will just hurt your perception.
Being seen as rude by other people gives you a strategival disadvantage for negotiation, and that will hurt the rate of adaption of your own suggestions. The ironic part is that people are even more petty than the "I told you so list" that you mentioned, only that they think subconcious pettiness of system1 isn't "petty" but only "a feeling" even though the mechanics and dynamics of it in a rational context are the same.
Work is work, and it will always be "just work". As an autist you have to learn that other people don't care about things as much as you would do (in a utopian star trek world). As a hu-man (literally meaning being that forgets) you have a very limited capacity of memory, computation power and energy.
And your efforts are far more efficiently spent outside the world of company politics, where most people are just busy 90% of the time with sidelining or attacking other departments for their own egomaniac benefits. Playing this game is a huge drain on energy (at least for me) and I therefore decided not to play it.
He openly admits his default way of dealing with the miscommunication was to quietly walk out of the room. Looks like he could consider some of his own advice. Also, referring to "allistic communication patterns" might also be another impediment here. Normal people don't talk like that. It's like talking to a robot.
> I think the author would benefit from realizing that these things they dismiss as irrelevant (mind games/politics) are actually important and beneficial to understand and master
They’re just part of the game. If you want to do well in any position you cannot neglect them.
Wow. The sheer level of disrespect in this comment...
You can't appreciate that this person have spent 10h per day for last 23 years at dealing with computer issues. Instead you think it would be better spent learning some office politics. I'm not even sure how to comment on that.
> 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 toxic.
OK, yes, but, how about: "I am still not convinced, BUT I realize neither of us are going to convince the other one right now, and I've been wrong before, let's try it your way this time."
This is not appeasing bullies and making the workplace toxic. 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. (And I have definitely been that person; I am not to my knowledge autistic, although some people have wondered sometimes).
I think people can mean either one by "giving in", I am wondering whether the OP, in rejecting "pretending I agree when I don't" is accidentally being the person who "always insists on getting their way every time".
> OK, yes, but, how about: "I am still not convinced, BUT I realize neither of us are going to convince the other one right now, and I've been wrong before, let's try it your way this time."
And one of the big things that tech people often don't ask themselves is: "Does arguing over this really matter?"
"Winning" an argument almost always costs you some social capital, so save your arguments for the things that are genuinely important.
If you've said the "right" answer, people still want to argue, but it doesn't affect you then sit down and shut up. Sometimes you have to let people make a mistake so they can learn.
If they're really smart, not only will they learn they were wrong but they will remember that you were right but didn't beat them up about it.
> I think people can mean either one by "giving in", I am wondering whether the OP, in rejecting "pretending I agree when I don't" is accidentally being the person who "always insists on getting their way every time".
Yes, it's possible that the OP is accidentally being a bully by insisting on getting their way every time. But it's also possible that everything the OP is saying is true, and the other party really is objectively wrong. Do you agree it's possible the OP is right?
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.
> 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.
In work environment, "trying things your way" is seldom harmless to success of the product or one's personal ethics, career, reputation, work life balance... Who will fix things if they go wrong and how much effort is such a fix going to require? How is my performance going to be evaluated if I accept a bad call? If the answers are clear and acceptable to me, I have no problem being flexible. Making things clear often involves talking to our common manager, although I might also decide that I am willing to put in the extra effort to fix things if needed if the other person is not being obnoxious.
I've never understood why people go along with things they disagree about. It seems people often beat a good argument with the threat of retribution if we dont play along. Doesnt sound like a recipe for well thought out actions or incentives.
It is though. It's a way of saying "maybe I'm wrong, and we're going to act this out by pretending that I am". This means that whoever put pressure on you gets their way, which motivates them to do it again. That is toxic.
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.
It's called narcissistic entitlement to expect the whole world to change their behaviour because of ones own inability to fit in.
I'm not saying it is fair. Life is never fair. The only one who has the ability to influence those situations is oneself. You can't rely on other to change - it won't work anyways. You have to be the one that improves those interactions. For your own good.
> It's called narcissistic entitlement to expect the whole world to change their behaviour because of ones own inability to fit in.
Is it not exactly what allistic people are doing?
Autistic people communicate just fine with other autistic people. It's allistic people that don't fit in and want to change everybody around them because they can't suffer a bit of diversity in thinking and communication.
Neuro diverse people can't necessarily change their behaviour because it's how their brain is wired. It's like asking a visually impaired person to just see better. Many neuro diverse people have to force themselves to "fit in" causing untold stress and trauma. That's not for their own good, it's forcing their brains to work in a way that they don't.
You're reading more into this piece than is there. The author never advocates that the rest of the world should change. This post only claims that these miscommunication scenarios between experts on the autistic spectrum and allistic people HAPPEN.
They happen to me too.
Understanding the nature of the miscommunication is the first step towards averting it in the future.
> expect the whole world to change their behaviour
Who is saying this? The article provides a perspective that is not discussed very often as a way of helping people understand these situations from a vantage point they might not have considered. Nobody is demanding anything.
> I needed to understand why our checkout had to be improved; I explained that technology choices made no difference to the user. However, the manager interpreted my words as outright rejecting their idea.
That's an exceptionally patronising position to take. The manager almost certainly isn't a fool, and likely understands the author's point already. It's much more likely that the manager was actually asking if the author had reviewed the technology stack recently and considered whether it was still optimal.
In other words, they weren't saying that the checkout page was bad, they were asking the author's professional opinion as to whether it could be better.
Author here, thanks for reading. That is exactly the first question I would ask.
If you ask me to make something better, I need to know what you mean by “better”. That’s where a productive discussion start, when we align the goals (and I don’t really care about them, they all turn into interesting technical challenges) and then discuss strategy (amongst which there is technology).
If me asking what the goal is is perceived as patronising, when I’m just trying to do my best, then sure I can work on that. But that requires good faith on the side of the manager. It’s not my decision to shut things down.
Thank you for reading. Of course, this is a highly edited hypothetical situation, and not what happened. I try very hard to understand how I can phrase differently so that we can answer these questions and work together. I think in other comments it became clear that the intent of the questions are not the problem. In fact, I am asking them because I trust the manager to have good answers.
Now, if I come across as patronizing and this leads to a negative outcome (as in, no progress is made in advancing the company’s goals), two things can happen:
- I can work at getting better at communication. The last 2 years, better writing has been my main focus, and this article is part of that. Writing good documents has been tremendously effective. It also only goes so far if someone doesn’t want to engage. In this particular situation, I spent the next week studying React (it wasn’t React in the actual situation) reading 3 books on the chapter and building a toy React prototype, and then wrote up what I thought was a concise report on what was good about it, and what was not so good. I don’t think this document was read.
- The manager can actually put some effort into hearing me out, and understand that I am trying my best here. Maybe I don’t know intuitively what words they want me to use for the questions, but it is also not rocket science to take words literally and not look for subtext.
If anything, it is easy because I really don’t care about subtext, or patronizing people. Where is the fun in that, compared to the fun of solving problems.
> It's much more likely that the manager was actually asking if the author had reviewed the technology stack recently and considered whether it was still optimal.
Then why didn't the manager ask that instead of mentioning some article some other company?
> It's much more likely that the manager was actually asking if the author had reviewed the technology stack recently
Yes, this is more likely. But autistics expect communication to be true and relevant. When it is not, it sounds like incompetence and dishonesty to an autistic.
If anything, allistic people allow a certain benefit of doubt in communications before assuming incompetence/dishonesty. And then they generally play along with incompetent/dishonest people if the social context requires it.
Oof. This is black and white thinking at its worst.
The author perceives only two possible outcomes, one where things go Right (correct according to his perceptions) and where they go Wrong (correct according to the other party's perceptions).
There's so much missing from this view of the world it's hard to know where to begin.
- The author could be missing some key facts.
- The author could be unaware of other priorities.
- The author could actually be wrong. It happens to the best of us.
- The author may have a history of being Right, getting others to go along with it, and then changing his mind to a different Right. That burns social capital really fast.
There are some algorithms for convincing others in a way that allows them to save face. Nemawashi is a good one to start with. "Disagree and commit" is another.
Best of luck to the author in developing some workplace skills. Once you're out of school, collaboration is more important than getting things Right all the time.
I read the outlined scenarios differently. They each speak to me as the other party engaging in black or white thinking while the author is attempting to maintain an open mind.
This causes the allistic person to perceive pushback. Neurotypicals expect tribemates to follow along, few questions asked. Every question an autistic mind asks to understand the scenario when the other party is looking for political alliance is a reminder to that other party: the autistic person is OTHER -- or at least more OTHER than Fred in Shipping & Receiving.
I often feel like saying: "normal people don't want to think about the details of a question." They grab for the quickest way to stop thinking and label it right or wrong depending on how much they like it.
The issue with this article is how the author is approaching all of these discussions. There is no attempt to see the other person's perspective, or evaluate how the author should be approaching the discussion. This is very common among us Engineers but is a massive failure. If a manager comes over and suggests something to you, you need to understand their perspective for coming to that discussion, not asking questions that would make you make the same suggestion they made.
Source: have worked with many smart and not so smart autistic people over the years. Have many friends “neuro atypical” and think I’m probably somewhere on the spectrum (aren’t we all?).
Autistic people have what seems like a much higher tolerance for bullshit both in the context of wanting to argue a point to finality or to obsess over a particularly detail until they’ve reached a shared plateau of understanding. Many times this is actually a very satisfying method of conversation, at least for me. Other times it can feel like talking to a wall.
It’s not clear in the article, but if this is all from the same company, this sounds like a really bad company to work for. The author is probably right that they’re being treated unfairly because of their autism (which is wrong), but I’d bet that the neurotypical engineers at the company also have experiences of being dismissed by management.
The example that stuck out to me was “should we migrate our website to React”. The questions the author wanted to ask seemed like very normal questions to ask, and good questions that any good engineer would ask before answering a question like that (unless they already have a lot of context about the website in question).
I don’t have autism, but I’ve worked with people with autism, and at my job I think they were treated more respectfully than what the author describes. It’s possible that they’re being mistreated but I’m just not seeing it though.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that although I can’t directly relate to the author’s experience, I would still recommend that they try to find a new job with a less toxic workplace culture.
What I expected: an article about the common ways in which autistic people don't realize they're wrong and therefore refuse to admit it. For example, autistic people will often optimize their engineering decisions around a performance metric (speed, memory usage, etc) that doesn't matter much, rather than a business metric (ease of use, maintainability) that does. When you push back, they will accuse you of not valuing "good engineering", just like this author does.
What I got: an article lecturing neurotypicals about how, whenever they think an autistic person may be wrong, it's actually just because autistic people are more holistic thinkers and know more than them.
The author explicitly states that "When these conflicts arise, here are some things that might be happening."
I think that's pretty important. This is not an article that says "I'm always right, people are just too stupid to notice that, here are mistakes they're making."
It says, or at least it reads to me as, "People often think I'm stubborn and can't acknowledge when I make a mistake. Sometimes, not always, that is a result of miscommunication, because my brain works differently from many others. Here are some of the ways it does that, and how it leads to that wrong perception."
His thesis is that autistic people are unfairly characterized as not being able to admit when they wrong… and then he proceeds to explain that he’s almost never wrong.
I'm diagnosed and have adopted a sort of "default wrong" approach in situations like these because I realized, well, I am often wrong! Starting from the stance of "This could be wrong but.." and then jointly building upon and testing my hypothesis (that, in the past, I may have declared to be inarguable!) seems to result in far more pleasant interactions and consensus.
> 1. The allistic (non-autistic) person is not hearing what I'm saying.
It's possible that they're not smart enough, literally. I find ease of communication is uncorrelated with whether they're on the spectrum or otherwise. It's their raw intelligence level. Somehow the bandwidth between our brains is really high. They often know what I'm saying before I've finished my sentence, because they've already figured it out and have predicted what I'm going to say. But if you're talking to someone with 110-120 IQ, you really have to slow down and spell things out for them, and some things they will actually just never grok unless you have 30 minutes to explain the abstract foundational concepts behind what you're saying.
I can’t imagine dedicating this much time analyzing whether or not I can acknowledge when I’m wrong. It’s almost like this entire piece is an elaborate rationalization the author is making rather than admitting they are wrong.
For me, the claim is, "Why do you always have to be right?"
I've made the mistake hundreds of times in my life where I put a lot of effort into a project, only to discover that I missed something obvious at the start that invalidated the whole approach. Like selecting the architecture-defining processor for an electronics design, completing the design around it, and then discovering weeks later that it's obsolete.
It's not about ego. I've tried to explain that I want to be sure I am moving forward on the basis of correct information and reasoning. It's a desire to not risk wasting time & effort.
I don't think I'm (very?) autistic. Still, I share all 4 points of experience with OP, most frequently with one person with whom I've worked off and on for 15 years. We've grown over the years and learned to some extent to accommodate each other's way of thinking and communicating.
As I wrote in another comment, I think it's very helpful to notice the mismatch between how I understand myself and how others perceive me. It's also worthwhile to find ways to bridge the gap. E.g., in the "rewrite the checkout in React?" scenario, OP might be perceived as more open to the question if they offered, "That's not a small project, but we could definitely do it" before asking questions or if they started with an open question like "What might motivate us to rewrite the checkout in React?" instead of a closed (yes/no) question.
Learning to speak in a way that helps people understand your intentions doesn't require compromising your truth-seeking values: it lets you enjoy the journey more with more companions.
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 secretly declared war on your idea, they can pick the least generous interpretation of anything you're saying and pretend you are an ignorant and pose as dismissive because you or your idea are not worthy of their consideration.
Short term they might be appearing smart but you know it was like trying to teach how to play chess to a pigeon that only bumped all the pieces of the board and look you in the eye wondering why you are so stupid.
Plot twist: you might be a little bit stupid in a twisted way: you were too generous with the wrong person. Giving too much attention to the wrong toxic interlocutor.
Most people are just bad at communication. Actually, neurotypical people especially and more so as they had less of the need to develop better communication strategies. That is why they can feel frustrated talking with a neurodivergent person, as it exposes their own flaws.
That said, a business is neither a democracy nor a meritocracy. Other than hitting some baseline of required performance, your actually work performance on the job does not matter much for career success. It is all about whether the right people like you or not.
You absolutely should be honest and direct when communicating anything that is in your immediate circle of concern. If you estimate the task will take you x time, never give in to pressure to lower it. Be clear what you can do and can't do and how long things might take you. Basically be reliable.
Everything else, well you can be right or you can be liked. Yeah, the company might make a mistake but does it effect you personally? If not, why bother arguing? Just go with the flow and enjoy the ride.
[+] [-] dusted|3 years ago|reply
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 discover that what I'm pursuing as oh_so_important is in fact not important for the question at hand (then I feel even more stupid, because, not only did I find this of paramount importance, but everyone else didn't even consider it (because it so clearly didn't matter)).
> Because I value learning, I read about 50 technical books every year
If the author reads this, I'd congratulate them on finding the time to do that, but also advice them to maybe read 40 technical books every year, and then read 10 about the topics they clearly do struggle with (social interactions, politics, negotiation, psychology)..
The opinion reads as "I'm right and the world is wrong" to me, maybe because I can strongly relate (except the parts about reading tons of books and being really smart).
I think the author would benefit from realizing that these things they dismiss as irrelevant (mind games/politics) are actually important and beneficial to understand and master (I am not saying it should be that way, but merely point out that it is, in fact that way).
The author may also benefit from investing some of their mental capital (I'm not being sarcastic, they're obviously very intelligent) into learning how to play the games, to figure out neurotypicals enough to communicate with them on their level/terms.
Yes, workplaces need to be accommodating, but in the end, no matter who we are, it's our ultimate responsibility, to ourselves, to learn how to function in this world.
As for the situation where the other party is factually wrong.. Well, yes.. I always imagine this situation, where I have the right of way on my bicycle, and it's the semi-truck that must yield.. There are a fair number of times where being right does not matter.
[+] [-] larve|3 years ago|reply
I didn’t give much information about my life, but I am pretty adept at playing all these games. So much so that I thought there was no way I could be autistic because of how many friends and business relationships I had. Until it hit me that I spent my 20ies doing what you suggest, which is studying the heck out of these things.
But it stops at engineering, where I try to be very open-minded and learn as much as I can. I have to readily accept I am wrong on most of my assumptions because I just couldn’t be a good engineer otherwise. I can be perfectly suave and agreeable discussing anything else. That means I probably know how to play the “acquiesce when you should” game quite well.
But I’m at work because I am blessed to have a job where I get to do what I care about: good engineering. I deliver great value when people understand my way of thinking, and thankfully I have plenty of colleagues that get it.
[+] [-] mcherm|3 years ago|reply
That's certainly a message I have encountered in some places, and in the first few sentences of this article I thought that's what I might find here.
But unlike you, I quickly concluded that that was not at all the article I was reading. Rather than argue that they were special because of their autism, this author listed highly specific, clearly explained ways in which other people they interact with fail to understand them.
> If the author reads this, I'd congratulate them on finding the time to do that, but also advice them to maybe read 40 technical books every year, and then read 10 about the topics they clearly do struggle with (social interactions, politics, negotiation, psychology).
Did you read the part of the article where the author explained that they do this reading because they find it enjoyable, rather than simply to get ahead?
[+] [-] Spooky23|3 years ago|reply
I don’t doubt the veracity of what the author wrote, but I would guess that if we spoke to the counter-parties, their recollection of certain things would be very different.
How people perceive the world and express themselves vary, and some people don’t jive well. I have a developer on my team who is very literal person, if I say “I could kill that guy”, he doesn’t capture the nuance. But he is brilliant, a friend and trusted colleague. A good leader should get that and adjust.
[+] [-] 300bps|3 years ago|reply
For what it’s worth, I think your assessment and advice are both spot-on.
I know the original author is far into his career as well but I think especially as we get more senior that humility and valuing other’s perspectives become as important as the technology. Some of the biggest mistakes I’ve made in my career were from dismissing the ideas of peers.
[+] [-] anotherevan|3 years ago|reply
I also find "allistic" feels like a dismissive or slightly derogatory alternative to neurotypical. (To be clear, I do not thing the author was using it that way at all, it is just the reaction the word engenders in me.)
[+] [-] q-big|3 years ago|reply
I am not aware of any good systematic textbooks on this topic.
(of course not the author)
[+] [-] cookiengineer|3 years ago|reply
I've learned the hard way that caring too much about work related topics doesn't contribute to your happiness.
Company men will replace you if they can do their business math for justification, because they cannot see the technical complexities of the things they are "wanting to be built" for the company.
Even when you can see dependencies of complexities that will break the plan a year ahead of time, and you were right in complaining about it, it doesn't effectively help you as a person.
Being stuck in the past is just the same waste of energy as being angry about it. Hate and anger are infiltration techniques and should be treated as such.
People will always react based upon their own experiences and understanding, and if you actively try to fight the statistics (aka you vs your team) you will just hurt your perception.
Being seen as rude by other people gives you a strategival disadvantage for negotiation, and that will hurt the rate of adaption of your own suggestions. The ironic part is that people are even more petty than the "I told you so list" that you mentioned, only that they think subconcious pettiness of system1 isn't "petty" but only "a feeling" even though the mechanics and dynamics of it in a rational context are the same.
Work is work, and it will always be "just work". As an autist you have to learn that other people don't care about things as much as you would do (in a utopian star trek world). As a hu-man (literally meaning being that forgets) you have a very limited capacity of memory, computation power and energy.
And your efforts are far more efficiently spent outside the world of company politics, where most people are just busy 90% of the time with sidelining or attacking other departments for their own egomaniac benefits. Playing this game is a huge drain on energy (at least for me) and I therefore decided not to play it.
[+] [-] starkd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aeolun|3 years ago|reply
They’re just part of the game. If you want to do well in any position you cannot neglect them.
[+] [-] smugma|3 years ago|reply
A lot of challenges with autism can be about not being able to see others’ perspectives
[+] [-] scotty79|3 years ago|reply
You can't appreciate that this person have spent 10h per day for last 23 years at dealing with computer issues. Instead you think it would be better spent learning some office politics. I'm not even sure how to comment on that.
[+] [-] jrochkind1|3 years ago|reply
> 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 toxic.
OK, yes, but, how about: "I am still not convinced, BUT I realize neither of us are going to convince the other one right now, and I've been wrong before, let's try it your way this time."
This is not appeasing bullies and making the workplace toxic. 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. (And I have definitely been that person; I am not to my knowledge autistic, although some people have wondered sometimes).
I think people can mean either one by "giving in", I am wondering whether the OP, in rejecting "pretending I agree when I don't" is accidentally being the person who "always insists on getting their way every time".
[+] [-] bsder|3 years ago|reply
And one of the big things that tech people often don't ask themselves is: "Does arguing over this really matter?"
"Winning" an argument almost always costs you some social capital, so save your arguments for the things that are genuinely important.
If you've said the "right" answer, people still want to argue, but it doesn't affect you then sit down and shut up. Sometimes you have to let people make a mistake so they can learn.
If they're really smart, not only will they learn they were wrong but they will remember that you were right but didn't beat them up about it.
[+] [-] a_puppy|3 years ago|reply
Yes, it's possible that the OP is accidentally being a bully by insisting on getting their way every time. But it's also possible that everything the OP is saying is true, and the other party really is objectively wrong. Do you agree it's possible the OP is right?
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.
[+] [-] apricot13|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cat_plus_plus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] namecheapTA|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maerF0x0|3 years ago|reply
I've never understood why people go along with things they disagree about. It seems people often beat a good argument with the threat of retribution if we dont play along. Doesnt sound like a recipe for well thought out actions or incentives.
[+] [-] krageon|3 years ago|reply
It is though. It's a way of saying "maybe I'm wrong, and we're going to act this out by pretending that I am". This means that whoever put pressure on you gets their way, which motivates them to do it again. That is toxic.
[+] [-] korijn|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] W4ldi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|3 years ago|reply
Is it not exactly what allistic people are doing?
Autistic people communicate just fine with other autistic people. It's allistic people that don't fit in and want to change everybody around them because they can't suffer a bit of diversity in thinking and communication.
[+] [-] brainwipe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] musingsole|3 years ago|reply
They happen to me too.
Understanding the nature of the miscommunication is the first step towards averting it in the future.
[+] [-] shlant|3 years ago|reply
Who is saying this? The article provides a perspective that is not discussed very often as a way of helping people understand these situations from a vantage point they might not have considered. Nobody is demanding anything.
[+] [-] gnfargbl|3 years ago|reply
That's an exceptionally patronising position to take. The manager almost certainly isn't a fool, and likely understands the author's point already. It's much more likely that the manager was actually asking if the author had reviewed the technology stack recently and considered whether it was still optimal.
In other words, they weren't saying that the checkout page was bad, they were asking the author's professional opinion as to whether it could be better.
[+] [-] larve|3 years ago|reply
If me asking what the goal is is perceived as patronising, when I’m just trying to do my best, then sure I can work on that. But that requires good faith on the side of the manager. It’s not my decision to shut things down.
[+] [-] mvuijlst|3 years ago|reply
Famous last words.
[+] [-] CoastalCoder|3 years ago|reply
AFAICT, the OP identified a minimal set of questions he thought needed to be asked to give a good answer, and tried to ask them.
Are you taking exception to how he sought that information, or something else?
[+] [-] anchochilis|3 years ago|reply
(1) Unfortunately that would be challenging for us because X.
(2) We've been talking about that for ages, because X, Y, and Z. I'd love it if we could make time for a rewrite next quarter.
(3) Hmm, interesting. Can you share the blog post? (Buys me time to think and follow up later).
What neither of us have time for is for me to walk him through my thought process via the Socratic method.
[+] [-] larve|3 years ago|reply
Now, if I come across as patronizing and this leads to a negative outcome (as in, no progress is made in advancing the company’s goals), two things can happen:
- I can work at getting better at communication. The last 2 years, better writing has been my main focus, and this article is part of that. Writing good documents has been tremendously effective. It also only goes so far if someone doesn’t want to engage. In this particular situation, I spent the next week studying React (it wasn’t React in the actual situation) reading 3 books on the chapter and building a toy React prototype, and then wrote up what I thought was a concise report on what was good about it, and what was not so good. I don’t think this document was read.
- The manager can actually put some effort into hearing me out, and understand that I am trying my best here. Maybe I don’t know intuitively what words they want me to use for the questions, but it is also not rocket science to take words literally and not look for subtext.
If anything, it is easy because I really don’t care about subtext, or patronizing people. Where is the fun in that, compared to the fun of solving problems.
[+] [-] ainar-g|3 years ago|reply
Then why didn't the manager ask that instead of mentioning some article some other company?
[+] [-] yobbo|3 years ago|reply
Yes, this is more likely. But autistics expect communication to be true and relevant. When it is not, it sounds like incompetence and dishonesty to an autistic.
If anything, allistic people allow a certain benefit of doubt in communications before assuming incompetence/dishonesty. And then they generally play along with incompetent/dishonest people if the social context requires it.
[+] [-] manimino|3 years ago|reply
The author perceives only two possible outcomes, one where things go Right (correct according to his perceptions) and where they go Wrong (correct according to the other party's perceptions).
There's so much missing from this view of the world it's hard to know where to begin.
- The author could be missing some key facts.
- The author could be unaware of other priorities.
- The author could actually be wrong. It happens to the best of us.
- The author may have a history of being Right, getting others to go along with it, and then changing his mind to a different Right. That burns social capital really fast.
There are some algorithms for convincing others in a way that allows them to save face. Nemawashi is a good one to start with. "Disagree and commit" is another.
Best of luck to the author in developing some workplace skills. Once you're out of school, collaboration is more important than getting things Right all the time.
[+] [-] musingsole|3 years ago|reply
This causes the allistic person to perceive pushback. Neurotypicals expect tribemates to follow along, few questions asked. Every question an autistic mind asks to understand the scenario when the other party is looking for political alliance is a reminder to that other party: the autistic person is OTHER -- or at least more OTHER than Fred in Shipping & Receiving.
[+] [-] h2odragon|3 years ago|reply
I often feel like saying: "normal people don't want to think about the details of a question." They grab for the quickest way to stop thinking and label it right or wrong depending on how much they like it.
This is of course an oversimplification.
[+] [-] Orothrim|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josh2600|3 years ago|reply
Autistic people have what seems like a much higher tolerance for bullshit both in the context of wanting to argue a point to finality or to obsess over a particularly detail until they’ve reached a shared plateau of understanding. Many times this is actually a very satisfying method of conversation, at least for me. Other times it can feel like talking to a wall.
Your mileage may vary.
[+] [-] ajjenkins|3 years ago|reply
The example that stuck out to me was “should we migrate our website to React”. The questions the author wanted to ask seemed like very normal questions to ask, and good questions that any good engineer would ask before answering a question like that (unless they already have a lot of context about the website in question).
I don’t have autism, but I’ve worked with people with autism, and at my job I think they were treated more respectfully than what the author describes. It’s possible that they’re being mistreated but I’m just not seeing it though.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that although I can’t directly relate to the author’s experience, I would still recommend that they try to find a new job with a less toxic workplace culture.
[+] [-] throwawayblah54|3 years ago|reply
What I got: an article lecturing neurotypicals about how, whenever they think an autistic person may be wrong, it's actually just because autistic people are more holistic thinkers and know more than them.
[+] [-] felurx|3 years ago|reply
I think that's pretty important. This is not an article that says "I'm always right, people are just too stupid to notice that, here are mistakes they're making."
It says, or at least it reads to me as, "People often think I'm stubborn and can't acknowledge when I make a mistake. Sometimes, not always, that is a result of miscommunication, because my brain works differently from many others. Here are some of the ways it does that, and how it leads to that wrong perception."
[+] [-] cainxinth|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petercooper|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackerlight|3 years ago|reply
It's possible that they're not smart enough, literally. I find ease of communication is uncorrelated with whether they're on the spectrum or otherwise. It's their raw intelligence level. Somehow the bandwidth between our brains is really high. They often know what I'm saying before I've finished my sentence, because they've already figured it out and have predicted what I'm going to say. But if you're talking to someone with 110-120 IQ, you really have to slow down and spell things out for them, and some things they will actually just never grok unless you have 30 minutes to explain the abstract foundational concepts behind what you're saying.
[+] [-] atwood22|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|3 years ago|reply
I've made the mistake hundreds of times in my life where I put a lot of effort into a project, only to discover that I missed something obvious at the start that invalidated the whole approach. Like selecting the architecture-defining processor for an electronics design, completing the design around it, and then discovering weeks later that it's obsolete.
It's not about ego. I've tried to explain that I want to be sure I am moving forward on the basis of correct information and reasoning. It's a desire to not risk wasting time & effort.
[+] [-] midnightmonster|3 years ago|reply
As I wrote in another comment, I think it's very helpful to notice the mismatch between how I understand myself and how others perceive me. It's also worthwhile to find ways to bridge the gap. E.g., in the "rewrite the checkout in React?" scenario, OP might be perceived as more open to the question if they offered, "That's not a small project, but we could definitely do it" before asking questions or if they started with an open question like "What might motivate us to rewrite the checkout in React?" instead of a closed (yes/no) question.
Learning to speak in a way that helps people understand your intentions doesn't require compromising your truth-seeking values: it lets you enjoy the journey more with more companions.
[+] [-] sebastianconcpt|3 years ago|reply
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 secretly declared war on your idea, they can pick the least generous interpretation of anything you're saying and pretend you are an ignorant and pose as dismissive because you or your idea are not worthy of their consideration.
Short term they might be appearing smart but you know it was like trying to teach how to play chess to a pigeon that only bumped all the pieces of the board and look you in the eye wondering why you are so stupid.
Plot twist: you might be a little bit stupid in a twisted way: you were too generous with the wrong person. Giving too much attention to the wrong toxic interlocutor.
[+] [-] cardanome|3 years ago|reply
That said, a business is neither a democracy nor a meritocracy. Other than hitting some baseline of required performance, your actually work performance on the job does not matter much for career success. It is all about whether the right people like you or not.
You absolutely should be honest and direct when communicating anything that is in your immediate circle of concern. If you estimate the task will take you x time, never give in to pressure to lower it. Be clear what you can do and can't do and how long things might take you. Basically be reliable.
Everything else, well you can be right or you can be liked. Yeah, the company might make a mistake but does it effect you personally? If not, why bother arguing? Just go with the flow and enjoy the ride.