Anyone had to take a break from reading something because it reminded them too much of their childhood?
I remember being terrified every time I had to complete a task for my parents involving strangers (usually shopkeepers) because I would practice what I was going to say but there would always be something that went off-script. They wouldn't have the thing but would send me to some other person who might, or the price would be wrong or there would be a buy one get one free deal and I would have to explain why I had bought two home.
Anyway on a recommendation I started reading a story about a girl who was an unsanctioned archmage and had to hide the fact, I was not expecting the protagonist to have mild ASD and unlock a bunch of childhood memories every other chapter.
Story is Archmage Coefficient if you are curious, although I'm only at ch. 7 so I can't promise anything about later chapters.
Oh man. I thought everybody did this. Does an NT not predict consequences in real time? Do they not make contingency scripts on the way to the market?
Also, of course this is a story about masking latent powers lol awesome
We do. I think a stronger innate understanding of the relationships involved makes it a lower-stress affair.
"I'll do my best. It might work out, it might not... but even if I fuck it up and my mom is annoyed, I think that's ok, because I can navigate my mother being annoyed effectively"
So this is pure conjecture and makes far too many assumptions about ASD and NT people; but I have two theories:
I suspect NT have an easier time with these situations since they have an easier time reading the emotions of others, which means they have a more accurate understanding of the consequences. ASD people are less confident in understanding how others may react so they catastrophize (X will be upset with me because I didn't do exactly Y)
NT people know that the person on the counter isn't mad that they don't have correct change, they know that their parents are happy about the effort and the will to help ileven if the outcome isn't the same.
Theory 2 which is related: A reliance on rules, scripts patterns and rituals to navigate the world makes uncontrollable deviations from these highly unpleasant, and empathy suggests that things you find unpleasant are probably unpleasant for others too.
This is compounded by the way people react negatively to atypical social reactions (this looks a lot like you have broken someone's social interaction script and they are unhappy)
This then loops into itself and causes recursive problems; if you are forced off script you have atypical social interactions (I don't have enough money for this, can I go home and get more) Vs the normal interactions the chaser has. This means you can perceive yourself as propagating your troubles to everyone else. E.g. if you bring home the wrong fish will your parents still be able to cook dinner or will they have to gasp improvise on the recipe.
By contrast NT people can see that the cashier experiencing unusual circumstances isn't a problem, they don't care and are just happy that the weird customer isn't demanding to speak to the manager because something was out of stock.
All of this means that NT people have a reduced (and more accurate) perception of the stakes involved and therefore less stress and less need to over-plan.
Oh. I thought it was about having a strict parent. Her thought process seems entirely reasonable to me. My mother would've absolutely yell at me if I came home without/with the wrong fish. She's yelled at me over getting the wrong color eggs (despite never specifying beforehand).
Thank you, O kind and wise internet stranger. What you've said speaks deeply to me about my own self-limiting behaviors when it comes to social interacting at large. I hate to inconvenience anyone so I avoid starting interactions at a cost to my happiness. I'm finding out that I perceive small inconveniences as much larger than they are, while most people perceive small problems more accurately, like you said.
I think you got it exactly, and if you expand "social interactions" to include text conversations like this one, a narrow idea of what is "correct" is probably why so many of us here seem to care for good grammar.
Going even further, I'd say it impacts any sort of "performance" that might have social consequences of any kind. I've been a perfectionist most of my life to the point that I would avoid trying a lot of things I couldn't reasonably be sure I'd succeed at on the first try. Any failure would also shut me down pretty hard. In other words, other people's "good enough" was my "unacceptable." Only recently did I learn that's common among autists, and it's something I'm still working on.
On the bright side calibration is improved through experience, so you will only get better and better at it as you live your life 🙂
An NT person wouldn’t consider someone else not having something they were told to get to be their problem, it’s not like they can make trout appear, it is what it is. There’s no alternative action here, you just buy the fish unless you have an explicit reason not to like “ONLY buy trout” or “Don’t spend a single penny more than X” and since there’s no alternative action there’s nothing to worry about or consider, there is no reason to expect a negative consequence in this situation, and if there was it would be chalked up to the person who is upset being unreasonable. Most of them can also process language quickly enough scripts aren’t needed.