An Explanation of Literalness

[bentHnau]

From Straight talk about Asperger syndrome

It is natural for a person with Asperger to communicate literally and verbally; that is, to not use and not interpret non-literal language (manners of speech, imagery etcetera) and nonverbal communication. This has partly to do with being attached to truth, to what is real, to being unable to pretend and lie. For another part it is caused by having a wide associative horizon and therefore seeing several possible interpretations to a given non-literal expression and not knowing which is intended, while a normal person with a narrow associative horizon only sees one interpretation to that expression (regardless if this is the intended) and is thus unaware of the interpretation problem. And while the one interpretation assumed by the normal person may well be different from what the speaker intended, normal people are generally so loose and unconscientious in their communication that they don't even notice the other person has misunderstood them, so that there appears to be no problem.
​

Do you find that this is true for yourself, or at least sensible and probable, particularly the bolded part?

 

[Daniel]

I relate to the bolded part in particular! Very much so!

I've noticed that when I write emails at work, on average they tend be much longer than a typical (i.e. neurotypical!) email sent by my colleagues, and it's because I take lengths to add in as much detail as I see fit to avoid my statement being misconstrued. If I can anticipate an objection, ambiguity or vaguery, I will account for it.

I've been working on limiting the length of my emails by going back and editing before clicking 'send'. If you put too much into an email, (some) people won't want to read it. But I'd rather over-communicate than under-communicate. That way, if someone else messes up the information I presented, I've got an electronic record that shows I covered my ass!

 

[bentHnau]

take lengths to add in as much detail as I see fit to avoid my statement being misconstrued. If I can anticipate an objection, ambiguity or vaguery, I will account for it.

I do that with my writing as well, and I struggle a bit to achieve balance. I'm afraid that it will seem pedantic and long-winded if I try to cover all the possible misinterpretations, but then if I don't cover one, someone will make that very misinterpretation, and I cringe and feel stupid for allowing a mistake that I could have prevented.

 

[rollerskate]

Dear Lord, that described it for me PERFECTLY!

Sometimes I'm simply oblivious, but a lot of times I'm not oblivious - I just can't figure out which possibility is the reality. Everyone seems to totally have different rules to what they mean by certain things.

And then I get mad at NTs because they keep assuming all this crap behind what I'm saying and I always speak literally! I say what I mean and mean what I say! And they can't seem to comprehend that!

And yup, this causes me to overcompensate by going through great pains and lengthy dialogues just trying to make sure I cover all my bases... and I usually miss one or two... and those are usually the ones that they pick to make assumptions on...

And another thing... NTs always getting mad at me because I don't understand what hidden agenda is behind what they're saying (or more accurately, NOT saying)... how on earth can you get angry at me for not knowing what you DIDN'T say, or drawing the wrong conclusion from it when everyone uses completely different rules for it?

Ugh.

 

[Toponoetikos]

This topic has confused me. On the one hand I see the world as being too fundamentalist and literal, and on the other I often feel strongly compelled to answer questions with long explanations that give wide associative context. My emails have tended to be very long. I see connections between many things and if I had to say what my one lifelong special interest is, it would be looking for the connections between things.

 

[karla]

I feel the oposit. I usually think that maybe I´m being redundant, so I tend to tell less than I should for people to understand me. Usually psycologists use to tell me "but what more", or look at me like especting more information, and then I knew I had to be more especific. I´m usually confused with that when I have to talk about myself. I don´t understand clearly when I´m being clear and I can stop trying to splain myself.

 

[rollerskate]

Ditto on the one lifelong obsession thing. I used to think it was just my trying to understand humanity as a whole, but you just made me realize it's mainly just been looking for a predictable pattern in everything... the network that connects it all together...

This topic has confused me. On the one hand I see the world as being too fundamentalist and literal, and on the other I often feel strongly compelled to answer questions with long explanations that give wide associative context. My emails have tended to be very long. I see connections between many things and if I had to say what my one lifelong special interest is, it would be looking for the connections between things.