Context

[Jonn]

Well, I am juiced up with caffeine and have the mental energy to discuss this.

Context recognition seems to be a rather common/major problem with people on the spectrum.
It was for me until my mid-twenties.
I suspect it has a lot to do with our autistic lack of theory of mind.
We may have a tendency to assume others are on the same wavelength.
I am convinced this is the case for me.

I will be researching this.

 

[Jonn]

Apparently, it is called: "Context blindness."

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, challenges with context recognition, often referred to as "context blindness," are a common characteristic of individuals on the autism spectrum. This means that people with autism may struggle to understand the meaning or implications of something based on the surrounding context.


Elaboration:

• Difficulty with Social Contexts:
  Individuals with autism may struggle to understand nonverbal cues like facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice, which are crucial for interpreting social interactions.
• 
  
• Impaired Social Understanding:
  They may have difficulty understanding the social rules and expectations that govern interactions in various situations.
  
  
• 
  
• Literal Thinking:
  Some individuals on the spectrum may interpret things literally, without considering the implied meaning or the context in which something is said or done.
  
  
• 
  
• Rigid Thinking:
  This difficulty with context can contribute to rigid or inflexible thinking, as they may have trouble adapting to unexpected situations or changes in plans.
  
  
• 
  
• Challenges in Understanding Emotions:
  They may have difficulty understanding the emotions of others or expressing their own emotions effectively, especially in social settings.

Why it Matters:

• Social Interactions:
  Context blindness can make it difficult to form and maintain relationships, as individuals may not be able to pick up on the nuances of social situations.
• 
  
• Communication:
  It can impact communication skills, as individuals may not understand the intent behind what someone says or does, leading to misunderstandings.
  
  
• 
  
• Emotional Understanding:
  It can affect emotional regulation and the ability to understand and respond to emotions, both their own and others.

 

[Jonn]

One of the main contextual problems I have found here is: Autism Pedanticism.

AI Overview
Learn more

Pedantic speech, often characterized by overly formal or detailed language, is a common language feature in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). It can manifest as using words or phrases that are more formal than the context requires, or speaking in a way that seems intended to impress others. This can be one aspect of the broader challenges with communication and social interaction that individuals with ASD may face.


Elaboration:

• Formal Language:
  People with ASD may use vocabulary or phrases that are more formal or precise than necessary in a given situation, sometimes to the point of being stilted or unnatural.
  

• Emphasis on Accuracy:
  Autistic individuals may also be overly concerned with facts and details, leading to long and detailed explanations that may not be appropriate for the context.
  
  
• Idiosyncratic Phrases:
  Some individuals with ASD develop unique phrases or ways of speaking that are not commonly used, which can also be considered a form of pedantic speech.
  
  
• Social Context:
  The challenge lies in understanding and adapting language for social situations, which can be difficult for those with ASD.
  
  
• Not Universal:

 

[Jonn]

What is the meaning of pedantism?


AI Overview

Pedantism, often referred to as pedantry, is an excessive concern for unimportant rules, minor details, or formal correctness, especially in academic settings. It's often associated with a person who overemphasizes these details and may come across as pompous or overly formal in their approach.


Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Excessive focus on details:
  Pedantism involves giving undue importance to minor points, rules, or conventions, often to the detriment of understanding the main idea or purpose.
  

• Formal correctness:
  This can involve meticulous adherence to grammar, spelling, or other formal aspects of language or knowledge.
  
  
• Negative connotations:
  The term "pedant" and its associated actions are often viewed negatively, as it suggests a person who is overly concerned with small details and may be seen as boring or uninteresting.
  
  
• Academic context:
  Pedantism is commonly found in academic or scholarly settings, where a focus on minor details can sometimes be perceived as a way to appear knowledgeable or importan

 

[Jonn]

One of the major recurring misunderstandings I have come across in autistic communities is due to context blindness.
In general, in NT social interaction, the colloquial definitions are usually assumed, while in autistic communities, the embracing of clinical definitions is much more common.

What is the exact meaning of colloquial?


colloquial. adjective. col·lo·qui·al kə-ˈlō-kwē-əl. 1. : used in or suited to familiar and informal conversation.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Context and perspective: Two very important details to understand when discussing any topic. Two people will most likely be discussing a topic from two different perspectives, and if this is not accepted and understood, can needlessly lead to conflicts.

A good example might be looking at a 3-dimensional pyramid. Each side of the pyramid is a different color. Looking at one side only, you may only see a blue triangle. The other person, from a different side sees a red triangle. Another, sees a green triangle. Another, a yellow triangle. Now, view it from the top, looking down. You see a square with 4 different colors. Then view it from the bottom, you see a square that is black. Spinning the pyramid, you might see a multi-colored cone. Are you the person who only sees one perspective or are you one that can take the pyramid flip it around in space and can see multiple perspectives?

Another example, growing tropical plants: One person in Florida has great success growing them outdoors in their garden. Another person in Michigan is growing them in their house 9 months out the year, but takes them outdoors in the summer. Another person living in Quebec can only grow them in their home. The person in Florida has big, healthy, beautiful plants. The person in Michigan may struggle with them in an air conditioned home with limited air circulation and humidity, but then outdoors, they perk up and are happy. The other person in Quebec may not have good success with them, at all, with small, spindly, weak plants, perhaps diseased or infested with bugs. We can all read books and view videos on how to grow, but the specific environments matter and sometimes advice used for one environment will be inappropriate for another. Context and perspective.

I give these examples to demonstrate the need to pause and discuss things from multiple perspectives and contexts. Whether you are here on the forums, discussing the latest news events with someone with a different point-of-view, recognizing biased opinion-editorials on your news feed, in a meeting at work, wherever you are, taking that time to pause, step back, think about things, perhaps ask clarifying questions, fact check, then respond, is a conscious mental exercise. It takes time and energy to do that. Most people simply do not do this. What often gets us in trouble is our quick-witted, sometimes emotional responses based solely upon our perspective alone.

 

[Jonn]

AI Overview
Learn more

The "blind men and the elephant" story illustrates how limited individual perspectives can lead to differing, and even contradictory, conclusions about the same thing. Each blind man, feeling a different part of the elephant (like its leg, trunk, or tail), describes it based on that limited experience, resulting in varying and incomplete understandings. The story is a parable highlighting the importance of considering diverse viewpoints and acknowledging the limitations of our own perceptions.


Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• The Story:
  Three blind men encounter an elephant. Each man touches a different part of the elephant: one feels the leg, one the trunk, and one the tail. They each describe the elephant based on their limited touch: one says it's like a tree, one says it's like a snake, and one says it's like a broom.
  

• The Lesson:
  The story teaches that our individual experiences and perspectives can shape our understanding, and that a complete picture often requires considering multiple viewpoints. It emphasizes the importance of being open to different ideas and perspectives, even if they seem to contradict our own.
  
  
• Origin:
  The story has ancient roots, appearing in various Buddhist and Jain texts. It has also been adopted and adapted by other religious and cultural traditions.
  
  
• Modern Interpretations:
  The story is used in various contexts to illustrate the importance of perspective, humility, and the limitations of our knowledge. It can be applied to discussions about science, philosophy, politics, and everyday life

 

[Jonn]

Contextual miscommunication occurs when the context or background of a conversation is misunderstood or overlooked, leading to a disconnect between the intended message and how it’s received. This form of miscommunication is subtle yet impactful, often arising from differences in cultural backgrounds, personal experiences, or situational awareness. It underscores the importance of considering not just the words used, but also the setting, relationship between communicators, and their shared knowledge or lack thereof. Grasping the full scope of contextual miscommunication is key to improving communication effectiveness.

14+ Contextual Miscommunication Examples

 

[Jonn]

What I find "interesting" is when people argue with the original poster as a result of misunderstanding the context the person presented.
Doesn't the OP define the context of the thread?

There might be a hint of irony in the air elsewhere, BTW.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

What I find "interesting" is when people argue with the original poster as a result of misunderstanding the context the person presented.
Doesn't the OP define the context of the thread?

There might be a hint of irony in the air, BTW.

Not always, but more likely what happens is that some of us read their perspective and context, proceed to ignore it, as if to suggest it isn't important or it was wrong, and then counter with their own perspective and context.

 

[Jonn]

Not always, but more likely what happens is that some of us read their perspective and context, proceed to ignore it, as if to suggest it isn't important or it was wrong, and then counter with their own perspective and context.

Well, I struggle with other ppl's context at times and just jump in with my own tuppence.
I like to share ideas.
The thing with me, however, is that I will acknowledge my misunderstanding rather than argue with the person.

Also, intentionally ignoring/dismissing the intent of the original poster is simply disrespectful.
Far better to clarify the situation, truly understand where the other person is coming from, and be supportive, rather than to engage in hubris a la Sheldon Lee Cooper, I would think.

BTW, most of my discussions aren't based on abstracts.
They use personal experiences as a base.

and then counter with their own perspective and context.

I am not a fan of arguments/debates.
I prefer discussions/sharing.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

There may be a few things happening, I suspect. For example:
1. There are people that when presented with a topic, their perceived inability to pause and understand another's experience/perspective/context leads to conflict. It's as if to suggest that their own experience/perspective/context is the only one that matters or is correct. This may have to do with cognitive biases, cognitive dissonance, or perhaps, psychologically, it is too traumatizing or humiliating to their ego if it is found out that they might be wrong. Nobody likes the feeling of being wrong, but for some, it is like a "rejection avoidance" type of behavior. The more facts and clearer the truth becomes, the more they dig their heels in and reject it. We often see this behavior during political and religious conversations.
2. Related, but there are people who genuinely struggle with understanding that their experience (life events, upbringing, cognitive biases, sources of information, conformational bias, personality traits, etc.), this combination is unique, that another person's experience can be totally different.
3. There are people that simply cannot control their emotions. Emotions rule their lives and behaviors. They cannot shut them off, calm their mind, focus, and run on their brain's "logic circuits". Combine this trait with "rejection avoidance" and these people may be the "chaos agents" that flat out will not accept any other perspective or context besides their own...or are the opposite...the "social justice warriors" with weaponized empathy, and will quickly become "triggered", argumentative, raise their voices, become physically violent, and their cognitive dissonance will not accept that the physical acts they might do (vandalism, assault, battery, destruction of personal property, etc) is illegal. When confronted by the police they may look stunned and surprised because, in their mind, their actions were legal, legitimate, and come from a source of good. It is difficult to have any sort of calm discussion with these folks.
4. "Black and white" thinking. Their life experience is so limited that all they know is "black" or "white". It's a form of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon. Low experience and low mental capability combined with high levels of confidence. Hopefully, over time and more experience, mental capabilities rise, and confidence lowers, more questions are asked, and that "black and white" becomes shades of gray. The more one knows, the more questions arise, that is, for people who are open-minded enough and do not suffer from cognitive dissonance.
5. How people do "research". For example, if someone has convinced themselves that autism is caused by vaccines, and are confronted with someone who says it doesn't, there is a tendency for both to quickly go to their sources and ONLY select those sources that support their belief. Conformational bias. Then it becomes a game of discrediting sources. This is NOT how to do research.
6. Knowing that the best lies are based in truth. The media, politicians, frankly anyone with an "agenda" to influence opinion, control the narrative, or hold power over people will use this deceptive technique. Many people are oblivious and simply accept the "news" as truth, but once they accept that this is happening around them, then it becomes obvious, they stop trusting what is said as truth, and question everything. It's that scene from the movie, The Matrix, when the lead character takes the "red pill" and begins to distinguish the reality and illusion of the world around him.

Given all the variables at play here, it takes some conscious mental discipline to pause, to understand one's unique perspective, accept the other person's unique perspective, ask the appropriate questions (formulating a neutral, unbiased, clarifying question takes some mental discipline), and then respond with an answer in a balanced and nuanced way. It's a difficult thing to do once, let alone to make a habit of it. Personally, I try, and keep on trying, but I know I fail sometimes. It's not something that comes natural to me, but rather is a mental exercise.

There are probably several other contributing factors, but being that is an autism forum, and perspective taking may be a difficult thing for many of us, do be aware that non-autistics may have similar difficulties.

 

[Jonn]

There may be a few things happening, I suspect. For example:
1. There are people that when presented with a topic, their perceived inability to pause and understand another's experience/perspective/context leads to conflict. It's as if to suggest that their own experience/perspective/context is the only one that matters or is correct. This may have to do with cognitive biases, cognitive dissonance, or perhaps, psychologically, it is too traumatizing or humiliating to their ego if it is found out that they might be wrong. Nobody likes the feeling of being wrong, but for some, it is like a "rejection avoidance" type of behavior. The more facts and clearer the truth becomes, the more they dig their heels in and reject it. We often see this behavior during political and religious conversations.

Agreed.

Also consider:
Social status is a major concern for some ppl.
Face-saving is of prime consideration here.
Deception and a lack of integrity help with this.

Social significance isn't that important for me, since I focus on personal enlightenment rather than becoming Jordan Peterson's head "lobster".
I embrace a scientific mindset where discovery and idea evolution are the goals.
And I am an acolyte of the Truth, after all.

Sharing, rather than competing for attention, is where I am at.

Spoiler

Damn, if I wasn't so humble, I would be so, so impressed with myself.

"Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way..."

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Social significance isn't that important for me, since I focus on personal enlightenment rather than becoming Jordan Peterson's head "lobster".
I embrace a scientific mindset where discovery and idea evolution are the goals.
And I am an acolyte of the Truth, after all.

Sharing, rather than competing for attention, is where I am at.

Spoiler

Damn, if I wasn't so humble, I would be so, so impressed with myself.

"Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way..."

Agree. Similar thoughts, and yes, the more one knows, the more questions need to be asked, and having the personal humility to know that one doesn't and frankly, couldn't know everything will allow one to proceed with an open mind and intellectual curiousity. One will often find the most knowledgable people on any given topic are often the one's to pause to formulate a balanced, nuanced answer before responding to a question. They can be the first to admit that they do not know something after acknowledging the other person for a good question.