• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Is having bad social skills offensive.

Au Naturel

Au Naturel
People can be offended by poor social skills due to the interpretation they have. The meaning they make from it.

Limited eye contact can lead to thinking "they don't respect/care about me" or it can lead to thinking "I'm glad they feel safe enough to not perform neurotypical behavior with me."

Lack of eye contact isn't inherently offensive. But to neurotypical people it breaks a social contract and is supposed to communicate disrespect or disinterest and they don't realize we are not operating from that rule set.
LOL!

When I was applying for an internship in college, one of the places was kind enough to explain that during the interview, I kept avoiding eye contact and looked evasive. I didn't realize it. So to correct this, on the next interview, I made sure to make what I thought was appropriate eye contact. Sure enough, I didn't get that position either. The explanation was that I made too much eye contact, and it felt like I was challenging the interviewer. (Most ordinary employers can't be bothered to give such feedback, especially these days.)

Turns out that eye contact is one of those subtle skills that NTs master effortlessly, while NDs need to study and rehearse. Lots of practice interviews are called for. Or you can learn over the years in the school of hard knocks.

This probably means I had been looking "evasive" every time I had an important interview my entire early life. Evasiveness is also interpreted as looking guilty by NTs. It is a "tell" that investigators, school authorities, and parents use to gauge whether you are lying. Lack of eye contact in social situations marks you as insecure and low status.

OTOH, too much eye contact will cause other problems.
 

Hypnalis

Well-Known Member
NT's learn the majority of their basic social skills as children, by copying the people around them.

There are two things adults have to do if they want similar results:
1. Break the habit of not copying
2. Observe, understand, adopt

The child's approach generally isn't available to adults, but remember: this is also true for languages, yet people can learn languages as adults. Not quite as well as children can, but enough to get by.

FWIW, the difference us that children don't try to achieve an intellectual understanding of what they see, nor actively select what to do. They just try things out and keep what works.
This isn't practical for adults, and our way is more work.

But difficult isn't the same as impossible. It mostly means that the goal cannot be achioeved "automagically", but requires a significant amount of work.
 

Au Naturel

Au Naturel
Perhaps its possible to do this nicely and not be needlessly rude about it
Yeah that's true, ask any police officer, people who avoid eye contact raises suspicion. It sends many signals, shifty, unusual, uninterested, rude, lying, it's ufortunate for people who struggle with eye contact. I have problems with eye contact but even I have noticed it, if I talk to someone and they are looking at everything except me, they just seem uninterested and bored, like they're waiting for me to stop talking so they can leave. The eye contact is an important human thing. They say the eyes are the windows to the soul, maybe that's why.
I spent 18 years with parents who thought the inability to make eye contact meant you were lying or evading or ignoring. Teachers were the same. It was not fun.

Look at me young man, when I'm talking to you!
 

Au Naturel

Au Naturel
I think what you said seems like fair points, if that yelling and the words with it were harsh, totally unreasonable, offensive or triggering and not misinterpreted, and if that stranger was like some average person, from any perceptions there that were correct. But through writing, for instance, it can be trickier as you cannot hear voice loudness and tone, see postures, mannerisms and expressions and sometimes we cannot see or realize more apparent conditions or limitations.

But if like what you mentioned happened during written communications, like if it would occur in this forum for example, then my response could be different, as the stranger factor is not really there, as the sample size could be larger for communications the other may have done with others more, and if any information about themselves or from some analysis showed themselves just to be like all of us, with some abilities but limitations, social or otherwise, and with preoccupations or triggers and so forth.

In a more perfect world where we all are mind readers and are of same or similar abilities and tolerances and don't have the same triggers, things would be so much easier when reacting back to others as perhaps in those situations we do not have to think as much and we can assume more things from what was said or from how it was said.

But, what if like in a writing someone was not yelling but felt just hurt because of some worry or misunderstanding, or perhaps they felt more confused or really just wanted clarification with no ill will but had a hard time expressing that, or if their condition was such it could be harder just to understand certain things. Or maybe it could seem like yelling to the other because of being bothered by some word, action or reaction from the other seen as very not expected, rude or typical, or as our trigger was involved.

Some are triggered by yelling, syntax, critiques, rejection, touch, smells, genders, impatience, and so forth. It depends on the person and situation. Try to keep in mind that in society we will meet or encounter persons that will eventually not understand us, be offended by us, or that will do something we perceive as offensive when we felt we did nothing to justify that. Sometimes we will be not at fault of course, if that other misinterpreted something or just was triggered by something or had comprehension difficulties regarding that.

In my case, I may see or hear some things I am offended by, in person or from another's writing, whether it be something totally unexpected, or a bit offensive if I did not think deeper, inquire more, analyze or put into context more, but something held me back most of the time from responding because of the situation. It was because I either felt harm was not intended or I needed more information there.

Even if I was stung by something just temporarily, that does not mean I was not hurt by it, I agree, and ideally it would be good if the other could say it was not their intent there, and they just misunderstood or take things sometimes literally, but if I did not see a lengthy pattern of that towards I and others, but mostly good, or if I felt any condition, trait of or comprehension could make things harder for them there, this would make me focus on the good more there or lower my expectations there, or I would not be too upset for too long and just see it as likely no harm intended. I would try to give it time to give any reply untill I learned more.

Now, if I act very upset back at someone, it almost never is from one occurrence, even if I felt that other deserved some critique back for any one obvious offense. I am more patient there and I would need to see some pattern to know how to approach things with more assertiveness or to inquire more publicly or privately. If I ever did get very upset at someone in life thus, know it likely was from having sensed many episodes of harm coming from them, not necessarily just against me but others that could be triggered by that generalization or other. Rarely does that happen though as I grew up learning to internalize harmful thoughts under duress..

But to be fair to others who I might not agree with or who I can be offended by, I am my worst critic and I pride myself on trying to be mostly mature acting under stress. Thank that to my high tolerance for stress, but also for my being hard on myself to be my best too for things I could do better. In my case, I will eventually more often blame myself for confrontations thus, even if I thought the other seemed to do things worse or initiate. That is a sign of strong character I feel, and it helps me learn how I can be my best. I have no control usually if others want to take accountability for their actions, so I do not worry about it much.

We all will be judged by how we treat and react to others; there is no avoiding that. But, whether we like it or not, and whether it is fair or not , those perceived to be either more confident, analytical and strong in some ways may be held to a higher standard for our actions and reactions, or we may perceive our reactions as less harmful or feeling more stung than them, but sometimes that may not be true.

So, for anyone stung by others during some interaction, I am sorry about that. Sometimes intent was not there and it just happens. Regardless it is not a good feeling there. I try to learn from all such situations, regardless if it was a stressful one or not. Usually both people involved in some confrontation need their feelings validated,regardless who was the initiator or who seemed a bit harsher or more just. In the ideal world both would apologize,learn from the situation and carry on. But, often each side is afraid to make the first move there, or from thinking they committed no wrong,or they worry a nice such gesture would be not returned,which could fuel the bitterness there. So, I understand that too.
Here's something I picked up when I was younger.

If you take offense at something, there are three possibilities. .

One is that the speaker/doer intended you to be offended. By taking offense, you have satisfied their need. They have controlled you, and you have lost. This is how trolls get their kicks, by getting people angry enough to respond. The same thing happens IRL.

Another is that the speaker/doer did not intend to offend you. You decided to offend yourself. Since being offended is a painful experience, you have metaphorically shot yourself in the foot for no good reason.

The third possibility is that you have taken offense as a performative act. It doesn't matter to you if the speech/act was intended to offend. You are using your indignation to try to shame another person. No difference between that and them doing something specifically to get you indignant. If it works now and then, you can develop a taste for being offended.

Or you might appear offended to secure your position in a social group whose members are all supposed to be offended by something. That's performative too. Gives a nice comfy warm feeling of belonging. That's why internet echo chambers are so popular.

Taking offense is always a choice. But IMHO, taking offense is never a wise choice, even if you enjoy it.
 

Au Naturel

Au Naturel
When I was young we learned to ignore it if people offended us, we learned, as you say, that we gave people what they wanted if we made a big deal out of it. So the rule was always "sticks and stones may break my bones but your words can never hurt me".

The correct procedure now in 2023, seems to be to get as offended as you can possible get and then complain loudly about it for as long as you can possibly can and insist that you are a victim. ;)
There is a cult of victimhood going strong today. Some pretty trivial things qualify, trivializing those who have endured great trauma. Unfortunately there is no corresponding cult of survival and resiliance. You're on your own for that.
 

WildCat

V.I.P Member
Being antagonistic, argumentative, self-righteous, negative energy, etc., is offensive, I know that much for sure.

I don't know how you would define bad social skills here...poor social skills? Or what? I wouldn't say that alone is offensive. If you combine it with everything I listed above though, I can see why people would be repulsed.
 

Au Naturel

Au Naturel
Being antagonistic, argumentative, self-righteous, negative energy, etc., is offensive, I know that much for sure.

I don't know how you would define bad social skills here...poor social skills? Or what? I wouldn't say that alone is offensive. If you combine it with everything I listed above though, I can see why people would be repulsed.
Tolerance is an important trait. Some autistic people come off as intolerant - even if they might not be. Like "Your feelings aren't important to me." Or "I am more smart/competent, so only my opinion matters." You might get away with that in some hierarchical organizations, but in a social setting, it is usually a fail.
 

The Pandector

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
It may be that we’re wandering a bit too close to the old saw that it takes two to tangle. The assumptive truth there is that both parties played a role in the dispute. Tell that to the guy who gets yanked into a dark alley and mugged; the math is sound but the conclusion is unfair.

If you intentionally spit on my wife, I have the option of choosing offense or smiling and passing on. If you do this every day, I daily have the option to choose to be offended or not. Jesus (and maybe Ghandi) might choose to pass on every day. Many others will ultimately conclude that a broken nose would dissuade the oppressor. Many will see you let it pass the first time and conclude that either you don’t care for your wife or you are an easy target, both of which are a denial of truth.

I understand when people advise that we ignore childish tormentors, that we need to be the bigger person. It’s sound advice. However, to give that advice without a healthy dose of ‘chin up, you don’t deserve this, they’re the bad guy here,’ disallows the victim any appeal to justice.

I sometimes wonder whether such advice can accidentally get to the point of gaslighting. As in, ‘You are actually responsible for this mugging; you shouldn’t be out at night.’ I understand that it’s not good for the public perception of the autistic community if we all develop a modern ‘victim mentality.’ But that… is a political calculation… and ought to be labeled as such. Denying that we’ve been victimized is an unacceptable accommodation.

I think this applies to this thread because yes, it is a serious sin to lack good social skills. It’s not considered that you lack good manners, rather that you have ‘bad manners’ and thereby no longer have claim to equal treatment.
 

Au Naturel

Au Naturel
It may be that we’re wandering a bit too close to the old saw that it takes two to tangle. The assumptive truth there is that both parties played a role in the dispute. Tell that to the guy who gets yanked into a dark alley and mugged; the math is sound but the conclusion is unfair.

If you intentionally spit on my wife, I have the option of choosing offense or smiling and passing on. If you do this every day, I daily have the option to choose to be offended or not. Jesus (and maybe Ghandi) might choose to pass on every day. Many others will ultimately conclude that a broken nose would dissuade the oppressor. Many will see you let it pass the first time and conclude that either you don’t care for your wife or you are an easy target, both of which are a denial of truth.

I understand when people advise that we ignore childish tormentors, that we need to be the bigger person. It’s sound advice. However, to give that advice without a healthy dose of ‘chin up, you don’t deserve this, they’re the bad guy here,’ disallows the victim any appeal to justice.

I sometimes wonder whether such advice can accidentally get to the point of gaslighting. As in, ‘You are actually responsible for this mugging; you shouldn’t be out at night.’ I understand that it’s not good for the public perception of the autistic community if we all develop a modern ‘victim mentality.’ But that… is a political calculation… and ought to be labeled as such. Denying that we’ve been victimized is an unacceptable accommodation.

I think this applies to this thread because yes, it is a serious sin to lack good social skills. It’s not considered that you lack good manners, rather that you have ‘bad manners’ and thereby no longer have claim to equal treatment.
"Takes two to tangle" refers to a voluntary dispute. Of course, there are involuntary disputes. One must always try to see if a dispute could be voluntary before making it involuntary.

Consider that, in many instances, in social situations neither person is a bad guy. That has become my default setting until I have evidence to the contrary. If they don't want to associate with me, we're incompatible, and that's as far as it goes. If they say incorrect things, I have no obligation to correct them.

Should it move into bullying, now they are a "bad guy." A bully is just a person whose problems make them dangerous.

Poor social skill is not a "sin." It is a disability, just like poor hearing or poor vision. Unlike hearing and vision, it isn't immediately apparent. Nobody assumes a person they know to be blind doesn't see something because they choose not to see. Unfortunately, autism isn't immediately apparent and doesn't get that benefit of the doubt. I don't have a good solution to this. One has to adapt where one can, socialize with people who are more accepting where one can, and shrug it off where one cannot.

Hatng the world accomplishes nothing and makes your own life miserable.
 

The Lorax

Well-Known Member
Friendly NT here......

From my observation and experience of living with 2 aspies the reason aspies come off rude is because they don't play the small talk game as an introduction with NTs. Small talk is an opener to show how accessible you are and to make them feel comfortable. NTs also don't know how to distinguish from an actually rude self-centered jerk and an aspie. I realized the difference.

The rude person can be insulting or dismissive.
The aspie is just flat honest and to the point.

NTs can't distinguish between the two. But once they realize the difference they can accept it.

For example.... I play poker.
When I go to the casino there is this one guy who is rude. He is egotistical, loud, inconsiderate, passive-aggressive, patronizingly sarcastic, comments on other player's bad plays, and thinks he is the king of the world. He makes people feel uncomfortable.

There is another guy who rubbed me the wrong way but I couldn't put my finger on it. Then I realized he has to have un-diagnosed autism. He is in his 60s. His comments are unfiltered from his brain but not a personal attack, insulting, inconsiderate or demeaning. Things like "come on make a decision", "wow that call sucked", "you should have folded when I bet", or arguing with the dealer that someone misplayed out of turn, for which he is correct but should let it go from a social aspect. But he never insulted or put down anyone. These are all thoughts people have in their heads but keep to themselves. He doesn't. He did treat everyone equally. After I made this realization everything was fine and he didn't rub me the wrong way.

I am not going to say small talk is easy, because it isn't. NTs just learn it naturally by engaging with other NTs over time. In fact only children develop social skills slower than children with siblings. The more siblings the better your social skills become in general.

The issue with "rudeness" and aspies, as NTs call it, is that many aspies have a hard time learning social skills to fit in. Then in their struggles learning it find it harder and harder to adapt to the NT world as social skills become more important. Especially for girls in high school. The older you get the more social skills you need to adapt to the world.

The largest take away from my reply is that NTs can't distinguish between a direct person engaging in efficient conversation being upfront and a self-centered, demeaning, and inconsiderate person. They think the direct person is, without using demeaning words, looking down at them. Thus why small talk is used to make the NT feel good about themselves and establish your mental state and acceptance of them.

My wife is really direct with me. But I always loved that in a person. I am adaptable. I can small talk or I can be direct.

What I tell my son about small talk is this.

.... While you personally don't find small talk efficient, think of it as a tool to manipulate and influence NTs to do what you want or behave how you want. This doesn't mean it is for nefarious purposes. Simple things like "please" and "thank you" can manipulate an NT to like you and give back. A few kind words can gain you a lot of favors and friends. Those same few words will also identify enemies. Why? Because most NTs want to be friends and exchange being friendly. Only the selfish jerks will just take from you. It is better to learn early with a few words of compliment and greeting this is a person you don't want to be friends with then with your money or emotions.

hope this helps.
 

Forest Cat

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
For example.... I play poker.
When I go to the casino there is this one guy who is rude. He is egotistical, loud, inconsiderate, passive-aggressive, patronizingly sarcastic, comments on other player's bad plays, and thinks he is the king of the world. He makes people feel uncomfortable.

That's actually a pretty good poker strategy. Make people uncomfortable and annoyed. Usually, the more annoyed they get, the worse they play. So talking a lot, commenting on peoples plays, being sarcastic and so on can really goad people into making bad decisions.
 

Au Naturel

Au Naturel
While you personally don't find small talk efficient, think of it as a tool to manipulate and influence NTs to do what you want or behave how you want. This doesn't mean it is for nefarious purposes. Simple things like "please" and "thank you" can manipulate an NT to like you and give back. A few kind words can gain you a lot of favors and friends. Those same few words will also identify enemies. Why? Because most NTs want to be friends and exchange being friendly. Only the selfish jerks will just take from you. It is better to learn early with a few words of compliment and greeting this is a person you don't want to be friends with then with your money or emotions.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant!

My own life improved greatly when I started saying Please, Thank you, and You're welcome, regularly.

I still forget every now and then. When I forget but remember it later, I mentally give myself a small kick and see if there's a way to repair the mistake.

Why should I thank people for doing what they are supposed to do? Including total strangers who I will never see again? At least partly because if you don't show appreciation, they have less reason to behave that way in the future. More importantly, it makes me feel good to have made someone else feel good.
 

The Pandector

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
When I say that poor social skills is a sin, I’m talking about the general perception. For instance, the word ‘rude’. We know that it’s a subjective thing, but when people say the word, it’s a bad reflection on that person. It’s taken as moral failure, so I called it a sin. Questionable choice of words.

I wonder how ‘hating the world’ came into the conversation. It certainly feels as though you are summarizing my outlook. If that’s the case, you’ve just done to me the thing I’m talking about. You assigned a seriously negative attitude to a guy you don’t know from Adam.

My original comments were stirred by a group of well-intended people giving what I consider to be harmful advice. You don’t blame the rape or mugging victim, but neglect to comfort the victim of anti-ND prejudice. I wasn’t defining an entire outlook on life, I was defining a salient point that I felt was being ignored.

I think it’s entirely human to swing back and forth between extremes. For myself, my knee jerk response is to look for the point of equilibrium. Denying or ignoring issues that weigh on either side is not my way.

I don’t hate the world, @Au Naturel. But I did find that things worked out better for me when I made a point of expecting people to see reason rather than just the common way. They expected me to bend, I expected the same from them. Reading on and on, I felt the victim was being blamed by lack of balance to the argument.
 

Au Naturel

Au Naturel
I've heard, "It takes two to tango." I associate it with romance or anything that one person cannot perform alone but two people with close cooperation can - the tango dance being one. I assumed that "It takes two to tangle." was being clever by flipping the sign on the equation to demonstrate symmetry.
 

The Lorax

Well-Known Member
That's actually a pretty good poker strategy. Make people uncomfortable and annoyed. Usually, the more annoyed they get, the worse they play. So talking a lot, commenting on peoples plays, being sarcastic and so on can really goad people into making bad decisions.

I find it the opposite. I want players to love me. If they love me they show hands, fold at times they shouldn't. If they don't like me they play unpredictably. A predictable opponent is far easier to exploit than an unpredictable one. Thus why psychopaths use this method and get away with it.

It also takes way more energy to be that bad boy at the table than the good guy.

Just like it is easier to be Keanu Reeves complimenting people and being humble than being Robert Downey Jr. being sarcastic and fun poking.
 

Rodafina

Hopefully Human
V.I.P Member
I find it the opposite. I want players to love me. If they love me they show hands, fold at times they shouldn't. If they don't like me they play unpredictably. A predictable opponent is far easier to exploit than an unpredictable one. Thus why psychopaths use this method and get away with it.

It also takes way more energy to be that bad boy at the table than the good guy.

Just like it is easier to be Keanu Reeves complimenting people and being humble than being Robert Downey Jr. being sarcastic and fun poking.
I’m not sure about that. I would argue that it’s better to go with your own strengths. In your example, it probably takes less energy for Keanu to be Keanu, but it would take more for him to be Robert Downey Jr. Whereas it might be very difficult for Robert Downey Jr. to be like Keanu because it does not come naturally to him.

Then you can keep everybody guessing, by having a strategy that is unique to you and your own strengths and your ability to manipulate others! That’s all poker is, right? A game of manipulation? (Kidding.)
 

New Threads

Top Bottom