Behavior that is both normal and not normal?

[Au Naturel]

Has anyone here ever thought about why being told off or penalised for something seems less fair if other do the same thing with impunity then of no one else is doing it or other who are doing it are also told off or penalised?

Well, yeah, that was mentioned before. The acceptability of an act often depends on the context where it happens and Aspies sometimes aren't very good at understanding context. The acceptability of something also depends on the status and position of the person doing it. Aspies usually have fairly low status. (I had the lowest status in school for just about my entire primary and secondary education.) When I was a kid, I often saw "popular" kids do something and it was thought cool and stylish but when I did the same thing I was slapped down as a "dweeb" and a "retard." Even got explicitly told that I can't do that because I wasn't cool enough.

And of course, some kids always seemed to do stuff and only get a wrist slap while I'd get the whole world crashing down on me for the same thing.

All these things are rules that NTs seem to know automatically and Aspies don't understand because they are solely looking at the pure logic of the situation and not including all the informal social complications. It is just the way of the world and there's nothing to be done for it.

 

[watersprite]

One of my relatives recently informed me via text that, “even though he knew all about what I had just done, that it is important I know he is not someone who gossips.”

So apparently, from their viewpoint my behaviours have been talked about, but I’m supposed to think and feel it is okay. They think my behaviour is so bad that they are not going to gossip?
Or I have been judged and found okay, so … what?
And why do they think I care if they gossip about me or anything?

My behaviours are mine and aren’t performed with other’s judgements in mind lol.

Normal? Not normal?

 

[Hypnalis]

@watersprite

There isn't enough information in what you said to figure out your relative's motives, but it's definitely a negotiation of sorts.

If you want to understand what was said, you need to think about the context, and consider the meaning from there.

Two scenarios (of many possible, due to the lack of information on my part):

A) One moderately positive interpretation: it's someone who feels you know you can trust them, and they have information (that you know they have) about some "imperfect" behavior on your part. The message says your relative will not share the information with others - i.e. "they have your back".
Possible "grey-scale shading to this - they're also exposed to criticism, and want you to agree to keep quiet about it too.
Slightly darker - it's actually their fault, and they're trying to draw you in (make you feel more responsible than you were) to motivate you to keep your mouth shut.

B) Moderately negative interpretation: it's soft blackmail - you do something (probably don't share information) or they will share something negative about you.

I hope you see that I'm making a big assumption: that there's actually been some bad behavior on somebody's part (not necessarily yours). I'm not judging (actually I don't care at all - this is an "SEP" (somebody else's problem) situation for me But your post suggests that as a likely context, so I started from there.

If I wanted to actually get to the bottom of this, and my first assumption proved to be wrong (due to new information), I'd select a new starting point and do a new analysis.

BTW - I'm not asking for you to share information here against your preferences just to figure out that enigmatic text. Your question suggests you're not clear on what it means, and I thought you might like a glimpse of a process for figuring out that kind of communication.

 

[watersprite]

Summng up your response, @Hypnalis : you’re saying their behaviour (the unbidden text) is within NT social norms?

 

[Hypnalis]

Yes, definitely. Both the content of the text (the words), and the surface content (assuming normal accuracy in your paraphrase) are 100% normal by NT standards.

But like the majority of human communication, the actual meaning is contextual. I used "surface content" to try to capture that. And FWIW, texts are, by nature, too short to explicitly contextualize the words. There's an implied expectation that the recipient can easily work it out.

I can't tell if the example process I showed is interesting to you, or even makes sense. In my defense: the approach is effective. I think NTs do much the same thing, but "instinctively", rather than analytically.

 

[Nervous Rex]

Two scenarios (of many possible, due to the lack of information on my part):
...

That's a great analysis. Also, bonus points for referencing Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.