Coping: A Survival Guide for People with Asperger Syndrome

June 23, 2007 6:27 AM

Coping: A Survival Guide for People with Asperger Syndrome. A short, to-the-point guide to the unwritten rules of life.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water (47 comments total)

This is an astonished attempt to explicate world-knowledge that is usually implicit. Kind of like what the Cyc project is trying to do in the field of AI.
posted by Herr Fahrstuhl at 6:57 AM on June 23, 2007

astonished=astonishing. Grr!
posted by Herr Fahrstuhl at 6:57 AM on June 23, 2007

An interesting Rosetta Stone for unspoken human behaviors...
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:09 AM on June 23, 2007

Much questionable wisdom here. But perhaps a better guide than nothing, if one is truly in the dark about social encounters.
posted by Miko at 7:21 AM on June 23, 2007

This is a great find. I wonder if it's really helpful to people with Asperger's though. This almost reads like a list of reasons why some one with Asperger's don't understand "normal" people as much as it's a guide to fitting in.

It's absolutely fascinating, though. I hope someone with Asperger's feels comfortable enough to comment in this thread.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 7:46 AM on June 23, 2007

Much questionable wisdom here.

Well, that's always going to be a problem when trying to codify nuanced nonverbal communication. But you start with the rules and then deal with the exceptions, just like learning a language.
posted by verb at 7:48 AM on June 23, 2007

I wish that someone that given me a book like this when I was younger. I had to learn most of this stuff through painful experience. I've never been actually diagnosed with anything but have more than a few symptoms. I've always joked that I was missing the rule book that everyone else was following.
posted by octothorpe at 7:53 AM on June 23, 2007

The time it takes between meeting someone for the first time and becoming partners with them can be anywhere from a few minutes to hours, days, weeks, months or even years. If it only takes seconds however there is probably something wrong.

Indeed.
posted by nasreddin at 7:58 AM on June 23, 2007

Some are very enlightening, sophisticated tidbits that reveal spending quite some time and attention to human behaviors , which is a commendable useful practice for anybody.

Yet I think people with some particular set of social problems shouldn't focus too much on fine details, even if their sensibility may be so high that they are likely to pick them up anyway. I'd recommend spending more time with people , but not that much or that often or in such a way, that it turns into silently obsessining about their behaviors or about picking the very fine details, maybe building castles of anxiastic conclusions about "she said MMHHRRPP , was she strangling herself with a cherry or was she saying "go away" to me ? "

Like

Most women tend to be attracted to men who are fairly good looking, gentlemanly, able to read their signals on boundaries (see body language), polite, clean, honest, not trying too hard to impress, adaptable, positive, supportive, charismatic, fun to be with, having character in their voice, not too meek but not macho either and who show an interest in their feelings. It is rare to find a man with all these qualities together and most women do not expect perfection.

Christ ! That's some list of qualities , and the way it is written one may read that most women want close approximation to Superman ; now that's a way to further promote anxiety, as they appear to be a set of qualities that MUST be shown, else failure will occour.

Don't chat up just anyone, make sure it's someone you like

Now that's typical of a not well written recommendation. I would rewrite it as

1. don't just chat anyone just because you so much want to chat with anybody, IF you feel quite too tense or too much uncomfortable doing so.

2. getting to know a person require some time, there is no rigidly fixed time schedule to follow. People aren't just "likeable" or "not likeable" ...your appreciation of a person will change over time, so what you don't like now , you may like tomorrow or in a year, if you understand better why the person did what he did or did not do.

3. there is nothing wrong in chatting some perfect stranger at any time, but that doesn't make chatting anybody automatically right. Sometime some people is so much thinking about something else they will dismiss anybody , sometime they will be warm and friendly, even a little too much. Sometime they will seem to be a little unpredictable, but that is NOT necessarily caused **ONLY** by your presence ; sometime you are part of a scenario in which you play a role you can't possibly know you are playing , but that is absolutely normal and happens to anybody.

My bet is that some of these people with "out of tune" social skill have quite some potential in becoming excellent listeners and observers, but they must first focus on balacing their own selves.
posted by elpapacito at 8:23 AM on June 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

octothorpe,

I know what you mean. For many years I imagined that most people had relationships where after a larger social encounter, the two of them broke everything that had transpired apart. It seemed weird to me that it didn't happen when I was with my friends. I would subtly try to get that conversation going and it never got me more than weird looks. It's embarrassing to say for how many years I imagined that most people did this but it was well after college when I realized that they simply didn't need to. Advice columns became a major focus and they still are. I am still occasionally shocked by some casually presented statement in AskMe or some other column.

There is no point in my getting an official diagnosis at this stage in my life. The psychiatrist I've been seeing this past year for ADD and he told me on a later visit that on our first visit I showed a lot of similarities with the Asperger's patients he sees. And yeah, I've got more than a few symptoms myself, although that said, I've made huge jumps in social proficiency since school. But this and a couple of other resources would have made a pretty big difference in my life at 13 or 14.

Some resources that I would recommend more than this one: some of the articles at wrongplanet.com, the book on social skills by Temple Grandin and her coauthor, and of course, AskMe, even though it does tend to induce some melancholy from time to time.
posted by BigSky at 8:26 AM on June 23, 2007 [2 favorites]

"If you wear cowboy boots, ripped jeans, heavy metal tee shirts and a studded leather jacket people might either be too scared to come near you or will expect to be able to talk to you about heavy metal music systems, life on the streets and various different night clubs. "

I wish I had read this in high school.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:27 AM on June 23, 2007

Excellent post. I had never heard of this dude or his book. Heartbreaking, in various very good ways.
posted by everichon at 8:30 AM on June 23, 2007

Yeah, I have never been able to speak convincingly of heavy metal systems.
posted by everichon at 8:31 AM on June 23, 2007

Strange, these humans
posted by found missing at 8:50 AM on June 23, 2007

I think this is useful for those of us without Asperger's, too. What I'd love is a document that answers the question, "How can I tell if I'm interacting with someone who has Asperger's, and how should I (if at all) modify my actions to suit their needs?"

I say this because of a situation I once found myself in: Back when I was teaching, I was at an end-of-semester student/faculty party at another faculty member's home (we were both English teachers; she traditionally invited all the English majors over for a barbecue every year). I was having a conversation with a student of mine with whom I had developed a good relationship, and the 16-year-old son of another faculty member.

The student was bright and determined, but something of a Hot Topic goth, and I often playfully mocked her about this. On this particular day she was wearing a Slipknot t-shirt, and I took the opportunity to tease her for listening to such a lousy band. She laughed at me, and made fun of my shirt (it had Mickey Mouse on it) -- it was a thing we did just about every time we saw each other outside of the classroom.

But the 16-year-old faculty member's son, who was standing nearby, took me to task for it. He got pretty angry, and told me that I shouldn't make fun of people for the music they listen to, because everyone's tastes are different. He asked me what kind of music I listen to, and how would I like it if someone made fun of that. He woudn't let it go.

Really, these were all perfectly reasonable things to say, had I been serious. But I wasn't serious -- my student knew that I couldn't care less what kind of music she listened to, and in fact we had had conversations before about bands we both liked. But the faculty member's son couldn't see that we were being playful. I didn't say anything to him, but let myself get a little irritated at him internally, because he had been sort of trying to monopolize me socially earlier in the day.

Someone told me later that he has Asperger's, which was something I hadn't heard of until that day. I considered what I might have done differently, and came to a troubling conclusion: Nothing.

Seriously. I'm not about to alter the way I interact with people simply because someone in the room might have Asperger's. And I can't imagine anyone with Asperger's would want me to. And I think that politely letting slide this young man's annoyance at me was probably the best choice.

But maybe that wasn't the best choice. Can anyone educate me on this? Should I actually have said something like, "Dude, calm down, I was only joking with her?" Would this have made a difference? Was I right to be sort of irritated with his self-righteousness?
posted by hifiparasol at 8:56 AM on June 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

Can anyone educate me on this? Should I actually have said something like, "Dude, calm down, I was only joking with her?" Would this have made a difference?

I have no idea if it would have made a difference, but based on the book that the FPP links to, I probably would have explained that it's a joke, and both you and your student knew that the target of the joke was people who make fun of other people's music.

Was I right to be sort of irritated with his self-righteousness?

Only if you think he can help it. Otherwise it's like being sort of irritated that a guy in a wheelchair can't go up a staircase.
posted by mendel at 9:18 AM on June 23, 2007

Otherwise it's like being sort of irritated that a guy in a wheelchair can't go up a staircase.

Fair enough... But the thing is, I didn't know at the time that he couldn't help it.

The difference is that a wheelchair is incredibly obvious. You wouldn't confuse a paraplegic with a lazy person, but you might be forgiven for confusing someone with Asperger's with someone who's just argumentative.
posted by hifiparasol at 9:30 AM on June 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

Was I right to be irriitated?

You can't do much about internal emotional states most of the time, but you can adjust your external behaviour. It sounds as if you stayed polite to him, which was the important thing. Your undisplayed irritation was understandable and forgivable, given that you didn't know about Asperger's, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was right.

But it's all water under the bridge. You were polite to him, you know more about him and Asperger's now, and I'd agree with mendel that attempting a calm explanation if you find yourself in a similar situation would probably be best. It would possibly help that person understand the situation better and you would probably be less irritated because you would be quickly explaining your behaviour instead of feeling pressured to change it.
posted by maudlin at 9:56 AM on June 23, 2007

Well, this might be handy. I have a 20 year old brother who's looking pretty severely Aspie's (according to his doc) and, frankly, my dad and stepmother cannot cope.

Interestingly enough, upon having met my dad, and having heard the description of me, he suspects we might have the same, albeit to a lesser degree...

Link forwarded. Thanks!
posted by Samizdata at 10:14 AM on June 23, 2007

Christ ! That's some list of qualities , and the way it is written one may read that most women want close approximation to Superman ; now that's a way to further promote anxiety, as they appear to be a set of qualities that MUST be shown, else failure will occour.

You’re reading between the lines too much there, which is exactly the problem Asperger’s folk don’t have. I think it was about as good a summary as you’re likely to get.
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 10:17 AM on June 23, 2007

maudlin, thanks a lot. "Right" was a bad word choice on my part; I just wanted to know whether I was being unfair.
posted by hifiparasol at 10:20 AM on June 23, 2007

Can anyone educate me on this? Should I actually have said something like, "Dude, calm down, I was only joking with her?" Would this have made a difference?

"Calm down" is a little confrontational, but explaining explicitly that you were joking would have worked. "Oh, we were just joking around. She knows I'm not really making fun of her music." People with Aspergers often need things explained explicitly, but the upside is that they won't feel like you are condescending when you do it.

(Non-expert, but have an uncle and some acquaintances with Asperger's.)
posted by callmejay at 10:33 AM on June 23, 2007

hifiparasol,

I think that you're initial conclusion, "nothing", is mostly right. The world is what it is. It might slowly become more accommodating to those with Asperger's but there will never be a huge shift. After all there are good reasons why social conventions are what they are. Some of the best and most practical adjustments are to be a bit more explicit, to turn the emotional intensity down, and to be a little more forgiving after the initial incident. All of these make it easier for the Aspie to try a different response the next time around. They are also practical in that they shouldn't be a huge handicap in your interactions with the rest of the world.

Aspies make social adjustment more slowly than others. Learning, to some extent, is driven by pain. There is no making their life, or anyone else's for that matter pain free. People who avoid being a dick are doing plenty.
posted by BigSky at 11:26 AM on June 23, 2007

"The difference is that a wheelchair is incredibly obvious. You wouldn't confuse a paraplegic with a lazy person, but you might be forgiven for confusing someone with Asperger's with someone who's just argumentative."

Substitute "Asperger's" with any number of other non-apparent syndromes/disorders/etc. and "argumentative" with just about any other attribute which might be undesirable in certain situations and you've got a wide array of people who may require some modification of your behavior to tolerate.

Of course we rarely know if someone is just being a pain in the ass or if they have a disorder that makes them so. Some could take this as a good reason to never take shit from anyone regardless of their potential motivations, I take it as a good reason to extend tolerance towards everyone.

(And this guide is just neat in a lot of ways, I may have benefited from it in the past (though I don't have aspergers) but I imagine I would've been more prone to fixate on it than to use it's advice.)
posted by Matt Oneiros at 11:45 AM on June 23, 2007

I take it as a good reason to extend tolerance towards everyone.

Absolutely. I'd take it a step further and add charity and goodwill.

I've actually been in a few arguments on this topic with people who think that we should always walk on eggshells, just in case someone somewhere has a condition/cultural sensitivity/learning disability/what have you. Often the people who make these arguments suffer from none of these things.

It's heartening to think that the people who actually do have Asperger's (or whatever) would rather I just be myself.
posted by hifiparasol at 1:04 PM on June 23, 2007

I wish I had encountered this guide 15 years ago. I have been diagnosed as an Aspie, for all the good it does me. I've devoted years and years of work into hiding and mitigating the symptoms and still often fail in blisteringly embarrassing ways to interact as a normal human.

I was 22 or 23 when one of my supervisors pointed out that I never made eye contact and it was kind of creepy. I never realized that making eye contact was that important - seeing as how I rarely did it. I was amazed that I had made it that far and noone had even mentioned that to me. That seems simple enough, but then the question becomes how do I convince someone that I'm normal when I really am not ? It's a really complicated mess, actually. I'm never certain I'm doing it correctly.

The hardest lesson is learning to watch what I say and how I say it. Normal people read all sorts of things into what other people say, frankly, I'm amazed anyone can communicate at all. Simple things. For example, if I say "wow, the trash is really full", I don't mean anything more than just that - the trash is full. However, my girlfriend will take it as my saying she needs to take it out right now. But that's not what I said, and that's not what I meant. I'm not even sure how you get from one to the other. But they do. All the fucking time.

I could go on. Don't get me started. :-)
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 1:10 PM on June 23, 2007 [2 favorites]

For example, if I say "wow, the trash is really full", I don't mean anything more than just that - the trash is full. However, my girlfriend will take it as my saying she needs to take it out right now.

Pogo, I'm not sure this is a function of Aspie's. There's a whole cottage industry based on the weird ways that men and women allegedly communicate. I can tell you that if I said that to my girlfriend, she wouldn't think I was implying anything by it -- and I wouldn't be. If I wanted her to take the garbage out, I'd ask her.

I'm certainly not doubting you have Aspie's or anything, just pointing out that the incident you highlight doesn't make you less than normal. Seems like you're being a little hard on yourself, and maybe your gf needs to chillax a bit.
posted by hifiparasol at 1:22 PM on June 23, 2007

hifiparasol, I was trying to give an example of how someone might read content into sentence that isn't actually included in that sentence. I wasn't trying to defend my diagnosis.

To be sure, I wouldn't comment on the trash being full, I'd just take it out. My point was that I am misunderstood with some frequency. I've gotten better at telling when people mean something other than what exactly they said, and choosing how to express my idea - but it's still a stupid, frustrating challenge. I take and say things far more literally and precisely than normal people do.

You are correct that men and women read different things into various statements and that has little to do with AS. Like I said, it's a wonder anything gets communicated at all.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 2:00 PM on June 23, 2007

Sexually related problems and points about going out

-Amongst young people there is much more talk and humour about sex than there are people doing it.

-The rules for men and women are different.

-If a man has had lots of girl-friends then he might be called a stud or a stallion. This is a compliment.

-Most men tend to be attracted to women who are good-looking, supportive and strong-minded but this may vary from one man to another.

-If a woman has had lots of boyfriends then she might be called a sl*t, a sl*g or a tart. This is an insult however unfair this rule may seem. When someone calls a woman a name like this for a joke, they have to make sure that it sounds like a joke and it has to be at the right time. If you are not sure when the right time is, it is better not to say it at all.
posted by availablelight at 2:21 PM on June 23, 2007

But that's not what I said, and that's not what I meant. I'm not even sure how you get from one to the other. But they do. All the fucking time.

The kind of dialog you gave an example of has actually been studied; you might be interested in looking into Grice's theory of implicature, and possibly relevance theory. The basic idea is that people (automatically/non-consciously) assume that the people they're talking to are being cooperative, and consequently, saying something relevant to some current discourse and their communicative goals. Getting someone to do something is a common communicative goal (hence indirect questions like "do you have the time", "can you pass the salt", "do you have any water", and so on), so it isn't surprising that someone might automatically infer a request to do a common task from "the trash is looking full" or whatever.
posted by advil at 2:31 PM on June 23, 2007

Pogo_Fuzzybutt writes "I never realized that making eye contact was that important"

Actually, imho, it is not that important in itself. Extra-ordinary behavior solicit curiousity in some people. Try sitting with your hand under your ass for any amount of time larger then a few seconds, and people will start looking at you doing that. Maybe someone will ask.

Is it important ? Whatever important means, it is certainly out of the ordinary experience ! So when some people notice (not all of them notice) that you (or other) deliberately avoid eye contanct, they are suprised because it is not (for them) an ordinary behavior.

Eyes are part of face, face helps us express emotions. Teary eyes , closed eyes, red eyes , narrowed eyes...that's a lot of nonverbal communication going on..but now imagine seeing only teary eyes, and nothing else..absolutely nothing else. You can't tell if the person is crying of joy or crying for pain, because mouth position help differentiate.

So combine not looking "as most people do ordinarily" in people eyes with acting a little shy, such as positioning your body in a direction not facing the person you are talking to. All these convey information, some of which is picked off even if not much attention is being paid to the person.

Imagine going outside your house and having a sensation that..the sky is just a little...different..something is odd, but you can't quite understand exactly what. Then you notice that , DOH, you have sunglasses on !
posted by elpapacito at 2:37 PM on June 23, 2007

Yet I think people with some particular set of social problems shouldn't focus too much on fine details

I think that's pretty much the definition of Aspergers, right? My friends son has it and his mind pretty much seems to work along the lines of needing ALL the details before the underlying framework makes sense. The ability to ask a lot of questions and get good, truthful answers aboute very aspect of everything is really important to him in terms understanding what is going on.
posted by fshgrl at 2:38 PM on June 23, 2007

fshgrl writes "important to him in terms understanding what is going on."

Yes and that attributed "weight" or "Importance" to a particular detail may be rationally attributed ! For instance, noticing that a person didn't like food at a dinner gives a legitimate clue that he/she is more likely to be disappointed then satisfied. That level of attention is certainly noteworthy, the reasoning seems to be consequential.

Yet this information may be completely ignored if the observer focus is , for instance, on himself ; the observer concludes that the disappointment is caused by his presence ; actually he/she immediately jumps to this conclusion or to a similar one by registering his OWN feeling of uneasiness, not necessarily by following step-by-step all the chain that would lead to a conclusion.

In other words, the mere fact that the X girl/boy was looking pissed (because of the bad food) is perceived by girl/boy Y as X being pissed by Y , possibily because of this unconscious anxiety about repeating a bad experience with other person. Some would say to Y that "not everything is about you, not every detail is relevant" but to Y this sounds like babbling, Y understand that as an obvious statement, possibily because Y doesn't understand why that statement should reveal his own error. In other words, Y is told not to repeat the error Y is repeating constantly....but Y obviously doesn't understand the foundations of the error or doesn't know how to change the behavior to replace the error (or is unconsciously scared of changing that behavior).

Therefore Y asks for more info, relevant info ! Yet Y doesn't know what is the relevant info, he doesn't know the question, because he doesn't know the problem. Hence the stream of question for fine fine details.
posted by elpapacito at 3:00 PM on June 23, 2007

Very interesting.
posted by flippant at 3:09 PM on June 23, 2007

"Can anyone educate me on this? Should I actually have said something like, "Dude, calm down, I was only joking with her?" Would this have made a difference?"

If the person has Asperger's Syndrome than it is not unexpected that the person would misinterpret a certain social interaction. If you know this person has this syndrome and this kind of thing happens, it is a good opportunity to explain in detail (pretend you are Spock) what was happening. What comes naturally to you needs to be explained to someone with Asperger's.

So you don't change your behavior, just your reaction to their misunderstanding.


I wish this survival guide didn't use the word Autistic so much. This word is becoming watered down. It really means someone so handicapped that he cannot function by himself in society. Dustin Hoffman did a wonderfully accurate portrayal in "Rain Man" (and had to fight the directors who wanted a someone people could more easily empathize with).
posted by eye of newt at 3:55 PM on June 23, 2007

I'm also question how useful this is to anybody. It reminds me a bit of all those books that try to codify the art and rules of, say, being attractive to women. The glances, the right level of aloofness and mystery, saying the right things, the way you move your body and so on... I've never seen anyone read one of those books and suddenly learn the art of attractiveness. And yet there are so many who are just naturals at it. They know it as instinct.

Human behavior is so complex that I dont believe it can be reduced to syllogisms. All the rules on that page have exceptions and, to the point, those exceptions are very important.

You learn things and become better at them - public speaking comes to mind as another example - by practicing and then getting feedback from others. And practicing again. And again. Until your mind builds itself the right complex model of interaction.

Attachment, interaction, attention, social nuance all have to be instinctive. Because if there's one thing that those who dont need rules are extemely good at is spotting someone who is merely following a set of rules.
posted by vacapinta at 4:03 PM on June 23, 2007

vacapinta writes "I've never seen anyone read one of those books and suddenly learn the art of attractiveness."

Exactly ! These books only "teach" to pretend and act like you are somebody else. An analogy I sometime use is that of learning how to practice algebra/maths by simply memorizing the equations : it can help pretending, but it is utterly useless and easily spotted.

Yet while some people simply would like to "score" with the other sex (which may reveal some other problem, but that's another story I guess) some other people legitimately seek help in all the wrong places, exactly like Leisure Suit Larry (if you know that famous videogame, which is not only fun , but a piece of history of videogaming).

Probably there are others in need that don't necessarily fit Asp description, but whose behaviors may have a similar root cause.
posted by elpapacito at 4:21 PM on June 23, 2007

elpapacito, Learning the rules is not useless to an Aspie, whether it is easily spotted or not. It's worse to be spotted as someone who disregards the rules and not knowing why people avoid you. You bring up a good point that someone who is too self-absorbed may take negative reactions as being towards him/her. I think that is a different problem, and one experienced by a lot of people regardless of whether they are on the autistic spectrum. I found out I am on the autistic spectrum about a year ago. This book is one of the most helpful things I've found. Thanks.
posted by kindalike at 5:07 PM on June 23, 2007

If you gate-crash a party with more than 20 people but keep a low profile, nobody should mind.

Er. I hope no one actually tries to follow this rule.
posted by orange swan at 6:33 PM on June 23, 2007

Is there a way to page AmberV to the thread, she's had insightful comments on this subject before.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:08 PM on June 23, 2007

"You learn things and become better at them - public speaking comes to mind as another example - by practicing and then getting feedback from others."

There's no arguing with this. But these rules and guides exist for those of who us miss the feedback. And there is no getting started without it. If you have a range of behavior to start with and you notice after a while that certain vocal tones, or certain words, or a failure to make eye contact has negative results then sooner or later, you identify the cause and shift your behavior towards one that matches your goals. But if I always display a group of behaviors that trigger negative responses it's tough to figure out which one is responsible. These guides do serve an audience. You are right that following the directives will make you appear stilted. It's still a good first step.
posted by BigSky at 8:02 PM on June 23, 2007

I hate the word 'neurotypical'
posted by empath at 8:58 PM on June 23, 2007

Study links autism with growth hormones, big heads.
posted by nickyskye at 10:14 PM on June 23, 2007

The Chronicle: Autism Unveiled
posted by acro at 6:43 AM on June 24, 2007

Pogo, I'm not sure this is a function of Aspie's. There's a whole cottage industry based on the weird ways that men and women allegedly communicate.

It's not even gender specific - different people have different levels of implication in their conversations. (Remember the famous ask / guess culture thread here on AskMe?)

I wish this survival guide didn't use the word Autistic so much. This word is becoming watered down.

Yeah, it is starting to feel like we're getting to a point where anyone who doesn't hold on closely to all implicated social norms is claiming they have neurological disorder. Autism is a serious disorder. Asperger's is a little bit of a greyer area and I'm not totally convinced it's a solid category. Self-diagnosed asperger's, though, is really rocky territory. No one is born knowing social norms, even if some people pick up things like that more easily due to certain natural capacities (comfort reading facial gestures or focusing on multiple things at once, eg), so nurture can easily be part of the story for people who just 'don't get' stuff a lot of the time or whatever.
posted by mdn at 3:17 PM on June 24, 2007

Credentials: I've had a diagnosis of high-functioning autism with an unusual degree of desire for interaction with other people - what would today be called a very severe case of Aspergers.

I really, really wish I'd had access to this material earlier in my life. I read some books on body language earlier on (in late high school) which helped me understand (or at least fake) some parts of social interaction. I spent a year when I started university observing those people around me, and trying to figure out the unwritten rules of interaction. I was fortunate that I had a couple of close friends I could trust to critique my behaviours and intepretations of behaviours, so I had an explicit feedback mechanism in place. Up until spending that year learning, life was a lot like an IRC conversation with no /me statements and no smileys, and lacking the ability to read between the lines. It made many things challenging.

These days most people don't know that I'm operating on what is essentially a lookup table of guesture->meaning->situation->response. I've become sufficiently practiced so that it is fast enough to not be obvious, and I'm told it is relatively hard to pick up on ... until I hit a situation I've never been in before. Then it's painfully obvious that I have no idea what's going on, in a painfully different way to a normal person. Also, under stress, I tend to lose the lookup table, which has suprised a few people.

It is not something easy to live with - for me, or those who associated closely with me. I dislike people who self-diagnose with aspergers, because I have the real thing in spades, and their use of the term means that the typical response to my declaration of something that is core to my life is 'Aspergers? Oh, that's that thing that all geeks have, right? Nothing major.' Nothing major? It's like being blind - something which can be adapted to, but no-one ever tells you that they can see.

@elpapacito: The paragraph you posted (about qualities of a man) would be how I'd describe my husband, actually. And he's not superhuman in the slightest, which is a good thing. I guess I just don't see what you see when you read that.
posted by ysabet at 6:00 PM on June 24, 2007

This will probably get me pilloried, but I don't think the book is very good. I have two autistic spectrum children and I can see the same kind of soft-pedaling of real problems here as you see in many autistic/"aspie"-but-maybe-not-really resources.

Yes, it's attractive to frame issues as being based in a cruel world of neurotypical deception. But those don't deal with:

* How to deal with reactions to obsessive or repetitive impulses in public.

* How to get along in restaurants when you (like many, many autistic spectrum people) have comorbid digestive issues which may make it impossible to eat anything on the menu or enjoy food that is ordered for you.

* How to deal with anxiety attacks when your routine is disrupted, and how people will likely react to coping habits.

* Practical organization when working with others. Putting things away, leaving tolerance for error and communicating cooperatively.

* Coping with motor skills differences in sports and games.

But talking about these things is, I suppose, less appealing. There's a danger that they could be interpreted in an accusatory, blaming-the-victim sense. And of course, they just aren't safe observations of difference that makes a certain segment of self/barely diagnosed people who happen to run online discourse feel special about themselves. I'm sick of it as a parent, because it means that I have to read so much garbage.

This stuff about coping isn't garbage, but it's not terrific, either. It's not a "survival guide," because it doesn't come close to touching real survival issues.
posted by mobunited at 4:19 PM on June 25, 2007