Trying to explain the social aspects of autism with monopoly

[kenaij]

In this post I`m going to try to explain my view on the social differences between NT's and people on the spectrum using monopoly. In truth I could have used any game. But monopoly was the first game that came to mind.
This comes from a video I have seen in which the difference between introverts and people on the spectrum are discusses and in the video this sentence came up.
"Autistic people don`t understand the game. Introverts understand the game, they just don`t like to play it."
Now I think this phrase could be misinterpreted since a lot of higher functioning autistic people seem to understand the game. So here goes.
I think there are 3 mayor catagories in this example with group 3 having 3 sub groups. Which are:
1: (mostly) Extraverted neurotypicals
2: (mostly) Introverted neurotypicals
3: a: people on the spectrum (could be both introverts and extraverts)
b: high functioning people on the spectrum
c: classic autism

Group 1: People in this group know the rules of monopoly. They also like to play the game. And they know the game well enough so they can come up with original strategies. They can also adjust their strategies based on the strategies of others. (for example. Buy the green and yellow street and you have the highest chances of winning) They also know the best value streets. How many houses and such to buy. etc etc.

Group 2: People in this group are much like the people in group 1. They know the rules. Understand the game just as well as people in group 1. The difference is. They don`t like to play it. It takes to long, requires too much thinking. Or whatever reason you can think of.

Group 3a: Here comes the first big difference. People in this group know the rules of the game. They have read the rulebook. They either like or dislike the game. This doesn't matter too much. HOWEVER. They don`t understand the game. In other words. They know how to buy streets, how to place houses and how to get out of jail. But they don`t understand the strategy behind the rules. They are unable to come up with a useful strategy. They just buy everything. Don`t see the value in their trades. But technically. They could play the game.

Group 3b: This group is almost entirely the same as group 3a. Again. Whether they do or do not like the game does not matter. But the one difference to group 3a is that they have read a strategy guide. So they have learned what are the basic strategies and basic counters to other people strategies. This means to other people they seem like they understand the game. While in reality they have just learned a lot of strategies. But are still unable to come up with original strategies. This also means they experience a lot of stress. Because they are afraid people will use strategies they have not prepared for.

Group 3c: This group might just know monopoly exists. But it pretty much stops there. They have almost no idea what the rules of the game are. The know you walk if you roll the die and that you have money. You win if you are the last. But how to become the last, and what you need to do to become the last they are absolutely oblivious to.

Even though it is a great wall of text. I understand that this is a huge oversimplification of the differences between people in these groups. On top of that, in my example I did not differentiate extraverted and introverted autistic people. Which you could do within all groups 3 with the difference of liking and disliking to play the game.
How do you feel the above describes the people in their respective groups.
This might be a total useless post. But I came up with it while walking my dog and I just had to get it out. And didn't want to bother my wife with it.

Hope it is readable. Since English is not my native language.

 

[AdamG]

I like this analogy. I fit firmly in the 3b description. Now, I do not like monopoly at all. It is greedy and snowballs too fast. So with regards to Monopoly, I'm an introvert. But it does apply to other games, including dealing in social situations. Which is a complex game with no strategy guides. But I wrote my own of those, I can think creatively.
.
So the one thing I do disagree with, is being able to come up with new strategies, but not because it makes sense for the game itself, but because I keep track of what works and doesn't. Almost like a computer learning algorithm, than how an NT does it.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Closer to 3b, like winning, but not afraid to loose, either. The more players in the game, the more likely that strategies are abandoned, as we are all out to stop each other. Sometimes it just comes down to a roll of the dice. No stress. It’s just a game.

 

[kenaij]

Just to clarify. All references to monopoly and 'the game' are actual references to the game of social interaction. I just chose an actual boardgame as an example.

 

[Misery]

Within the analogy, there's a group I do think is missing, which is the ones who are definitely on the spectrum, but their traits match up perfectly to the particular activity... board games, in the analogy example... and they can come up with new strategies practically just by sneezing.

And then everyone calls them the irritating know it all or something like that. Or in terms of like, *actual* games, "you're taking it too seriously" or "you're trying too hard, loosen up" because of course being actually invested in the bloody thing is "too much" or some stupid nonsense like that (in the context of actual board gaming, I play pure solo, and that's part of why).

I've seen or experienced this sort of thing in many situations to the point where I tend to just... automatically stay back. Like, okay, here's this situation, there's a thing happening, everyone else is invested in whatever it is, and I know EVERYTHING about it... but I'm gonna back off and just drink my soda and watch everyone fumble around, because everyone always gets annoyed at me if I do otherwise. Generally in that situation I wont speak unless directly asked, and even then, only short, clipped answers.

 

[AdamG]

I agree with @Misery on this. I've tried to be social for 45 of my 55 years, and I'm very smart and observant, and so I can read the situation very well. Unfortunately, I am not able to speak very well, unless I go into what my wife calls "Professor Adam mode" which is me talking about something I am confident in knowing about. And that upsets most people, because they hate to think the nerdy kid is telling them what to do.
.
So I don't play monopoly, and I don't play social unless I feel safe doing so on my own terms.

 

[AdamG]

The only time I can think of, when I was comfortable in a team, was when I was in school and assigned to a team where we had to design board games. Nobody wanted to work, and some of the team didn't even playtest. I'm glad there was a good teacher, me and the only other person to help got As, the rest got Cs because we pulled up their Fs.

 

[kenaij]

Within the analogy, there's a group I do think is missing, which is the ones who are definitely on the spectrum, but their traits match up perfectly to the particular activity... board games, in the analogy example... and they can come up with new strategies practically just by sneezing.

And then everyone calls them the irritating know it all or something like that. Or in terms of like, *actual* games, "you're taking it too seriously" or "you're trying too hard, loosen up" because of course being actually invested in the bloody thing is "too much" or some stupid nonsense like that (in the context of actual board gaming, I play pure solo, and that's part of why).

I've seen or experienced this sort of thing in many situations to the point where I tend to just... automatically stay back. Like, okay, here's this situation, there's a thing happening, everyone else is invested in whatever it is, and I know EVERYTHING about it... but I'm gonna back off and just drink my soda and watch everyone fumble around, because everyone always gets annoyed at me if I do otherwise. Generally in that situation I wont speak unless directly asked, and even then, only short, clipped answers.

I totally get what you mean. I don`t think I have it as often as you do. But perticularly are a child. And even now as an adult. The notion of taking things to seriously. Or looking into something too much.
If a discussion is going on. Or someone gives their opinion and I counter it with actual facts. I`m the know it all. Well to an extent yes. Because I think you can only have a valid opinion on something if you have done research on the subject.
When it relates to games I enjoy. I also try to find a ton of information. There is this mobile game. I calculate and find out what the best rewards vs time invested is. When I try to explain it to a friend what the best use of their time is. They shrug it of. I`ll do it this way instead. It is so infuriating.

But as I have tried to explain. The boardgame in this example is mean as social interaction. Like talking. Chit chat. I try to explain the difference between NT introvert with autism to NT's about twice of 3 times a week. And I was trying to find a way to explain it to them in a way they will get. It was not meant to be taken too literal.

 

[AdamG]

@kenaij I think we all get that it an analogy. We are extending it a bit and also talking about social interaction, if I read correctly. If I say monopoly in my post, I am using your metaphor to make a point... I hope you are not upset by that.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Just to clarify. All references to monopoly and 'the game' are actual references to the game of social interaction. I just chose an actual boardgame as an example.

LOL! In that case, I'm not sure where you were going with this. My mind would have never put any board game as some sort of analogy for social interaction. To me these are entirely different things.

 

[AdamG]

Ok, well I liked the conversation but I suppose I totally missed your point. Sorry if I was any trouble.

 

[kenaij]

LOL! In that case, I'm not sure where you were going with this. My mind would have never put any board game as some sort of analogy for social interaction. To me these are entirely different things.

That thought process came from the quote "Autistic people don`t understand the game. Introverts understand the game, they just don`t like to play it." I heard from a video on youtube. I thought. But I seem to understand the game. But do I. No. I KNOW the rules. But dont really understand it. Monopoly just was the first actual game that came to mind.
All this was triggered by the word Game in the quote.

 

[Misery]

LOL! In that case, I'm not sure where you were going with this. My mind would have never put any board game as some sort of analogy for social interaction. To me these are entirely different things.

Generally board games are social experiences, played either competitively or co-operatively. For some people (usually those with a casual interest) the interaction, the social aspect, is the entire point of playing one to begin with. And some board games are very specifically designed to heighten the social interactions aspect of the hobby.

So that could be part of it.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

There’s strategy in monopoly?

 

[Stuttermabolur]

While I think it's a nice idea, and I understand the need to get the analogy out there to share, I don't think it is particularly useful. It's a bit cumbersome, and can be confusing to some people (including those in the thread). I think the more common "social script" explanation does more to make people understand what you are talking about. To me, saying "introverts don't like social interactions though they are perfectly capable of performing them, while autistics have difficulties understanding how best to interact with others (especially in groups) but can be introverted and extroverted" is clearer than your analogy, though it might be in part due to how my mind work.

I'm also not sure I agree with you on classic autism. Oftentimes they do understand things, but simply see no reason to engage. Or they physically can't. In those cases I wouldn't say (using your analogy) that they can't understand the game at all, but rather that they don't know it exists, or don't own a die, or can't speak (which is as much of a hindrance in Monopoly as in actuality). "Classical" autists can be very clever, but whether on purpose or because they feel physically incapable, they don't communicate it to others.

 

[Au Naturel]

There’s strategy in monopoly?

The most important strategy is to be the first to roll. Everyone else will be picking over the stuff you didn't buy. Then, have good die rolls on the initial laps. No amount of strategy will help if you land on no-value and low-value squares, and the other players snap everything up. You also need to be good at wheeling and dealing. Because that involves as much psychology as rational decision-making, NTs have a decided advantage.

Everything else is just probability and math.

 

[MNAus]

That thought process came from the quote "Autistic people don`t understand the game. Introverts understand the game, they just don`t like to play it." I heard from a video on youtube. I thought. But I seem to understand the game. But do I. No. I KNOW the rules. But dont really understand it. Monopoly just was the first actual game that came to mind.
All this was triggered by the word Game in the quote.

I get the analogy, and think it's useful to come up with these because for NTs the idea that NDs don't "get" social interaction is like saying "I don't understand this whole eating thing". Of course you're going to struggle when you want to come up with groups, because in NTs there are introverted and extroverted ways of succeeding socially, though the former tend to have more success. And, of course, there are MANY shades of ASD rather than groups.

IF I had to group, I'm HFA I guess, so how do I see myself in this analogy? I think the distinction between myself and NTs is that NTs seem to actually be on the board, walking and interacting, experiencing it and just getting along like the monopoly board is their natural world and the rules are in their DNA. I feel like I'm sat here with a pile of instruction manuals written in Cyrillic with odd pictures that barely seem connected to the board game in front of me. If you're from the UK you'll recognise Numberwang.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Generally board games are social experiences, played either competitively or co-operatively. For some people (usually those with a casual interest) the interaction, the social aspect, is the entire point of playing one to begin with. And some board games are very specifically designed to heighten the social interactions aspect of the hobby.

So that could be part of it.

Agree. However, I am having a difficult time with the analogy, itself. I generally don't see myself using "rules and strategy" in my social interactions that often. I know, sometimes, there are (social and professional hierarchies, cultural rules with regards to interactions with men, women, and children), and I have to be sensitive to that, but for the most part I try not to entertain these things and just treat everyone pretty much the same until I really get to know them. I generally don't see life and socialization in terms of "a game", as I don't seem to have psychopathic, sociopathic, nor narcissistic traits where I try to analyze and manipulate.

 

[kenaij]

I get what you mean. With rules I kind of mean like saying 'Hi, how are you today?" before you continue to ask a question regarding something you want or need from them.
I see it as a rule because if you skip the first part people will think you are rude. But if you do not understand why the people think it is rude you will not say the first part. Why would you? You don`t want to know how they are doing today. You want something else from them.
Things like this can cause problems in social interaction. So I see them as unwritten rules that are very natural to most NT's. But can be very unnatural for people on the spectrum.

 

[MNAus]

Agree. However, I am having a difficult time with the analogy, itself. I generally don't see myself using "rules and strategy" in my social interactions that often. I know, sometimes, there are (social and professional hierarchies, cultural rules with regards to interactions with men, women, and children), and I have to be sensitive to that, but for the most part I try not to entertain these things and just treat everyone pretty much the same until I really get to know them. I generally don't see life and socialization in terms of "a game", as I don't seem to have psychopathic, sociopathic, nor narcissistic traits where I try to analyze and manipulate.

I don't think it's about being manipulative as such, more that if social interaction doesn't come naturally, it can feel like learning the rules of a complex game. That might sound like it's being manipulative, but that's not really true if you're not choosing to set aside your natural reaction and doing so for some advantage.