NT and Aspie Communication

[KassieMac]

Maybe because one of your ancestors was randomly stirring the pot one day. Your ancestor's parent, wanting something consistent and systematic, got frustrated and said to stir it 'like this'. 'Like this' became a law passed from generation to generation, but the reason was lost. Saw a story like this once about preparing roast beef.

I used to get reprimanded for not stirring in a proper figure of eight. But I thought a pure figure of eight misses a lot of the bottom. Even now, I have to cover the whole pot bottom, even if I do a basic figure of eight.

Hmmm. I always heard stirring the pot in the "right" direction is relative to which hemisphere you exist in. North or south.

Just kidding. I suppose we all have our own personal methodologies on so many things. Which direction do I stir the pot? Never thought about it. Likely both in the same time frame.

LOL...I'd think stirring vigorously for a specified time is probably all that counts with most cooking instructions.

I can see why you're confused because it looks like your Ma had her own way of doing things that she was used to and she was trying to get you to do those things the exact same way. It's kinda like with me and my friend Mary. She was taught how to knit in a weird way and she had a problem doing the purl stitch because of it. Rather than me trying to figure out how to do the purl stitch in the weird was she was taught and teach her that way, I just wanted her to "unlearn" how she was taught and learn it the "right way". Of course that never happened. She finally was able to figure it out her way.

I guess what I do is kind of a modified figure-8 … and switch directions, and be sure to get the middle areas, it seemed more important to me to completely stir the contents than to adhere to some nonsensical 'rule' … which was really no more than personal preference. If someone can explain & support their preference I'd be really interested to learn about it … but I find I can't just memorize all these random bits that don't make sense to me, and that the people who try to enforce them can't even explain.

 

[Judge]

If someone can explain & support their preference I'd be really interested to learn about it … but I find I can't just memorize all these random bits that don't make sense to me, and that the people who try to enforce them can't even explain.

I can only venture to guess that some people feel a need to make something "proprietary". So if they slap their own methodology onto something it's exclusively THEIRS. (This could apply to potentially anyone NT or Aspie.)

But then when I make a plate of fudge, no matter how I've learned to get it just right, the chocolate will still be Hershey's or Ghirardelli's, the sugar C&H, butter from a cow....etc. etc..

MY fudge recipe? Meh....call it what you want. I just care that it comes out right.

 

[KassieMac]

If someone hem haws around with a response, it usually means they can't make up their mind and are "wishy washy" or they are trying to come up with a lie of some kind and are really bad at lying. An instant emotional response means it is a "truthful" response and came off the top of the persons head so it must be actually how that person feels about that topic. It's kinda like when an Aspie tells you something off the top of their head - even though it blunt, it's exactly how they think of that topic.

That's not what it actually means, it's just how NTs choose to perceive us. What you stated is a commonly-held misperception that works against us no matter what we do. I know many sharp-witted people who can lie & deceive quickly & naturally. And like I said, when I don't take the time to phrase things 'politely' people respond with anger & hostility. So they want a quick response, but not necessarily an honest one; and they want a polite response but won't give us 1.5 seconds to rephrase it to their liking. Sounds like these 'rules' were created specifically to work against us. Can't win for losing.

 

[KassieMac]

I can only venture to guess that some people feel a need to make something "proprietary". So if they slap their own methodology onto something it's exclusively THEIRS.

But then when I make a plate of fudge, no matter how I've learned to get it just right, the chocolate will still be Hershey's or Ghirardelli's, the sugar C&H, butter from a cow....etc. etc..

MY fudge recipe? Meh....call it what you want. I just care that it comes out right.

And that's fine ... I have no problem with someone taking ownership of a process or method, but then they seem to turn it into a competition where they get more 'points' for getting others to do things their way ... like some sort of multi-level marketing scheme. If what they're doing is practical & efficient, I'm happy to learn from it. If not, I'll stick to doing it the best way I know of ... then they 'correct' me, so I ask them to explain ... they can't, so they become angry & hostile. Umm, no. If this hypothetical person has the right to make their process more personal and do it their own way, I have the right to make it more efficient and do it my way. Unless they're paying me to follow their methods, they must accept that I have the same rights.

Most people don't understand the difference between right v wrong and personal preference. If my method gets the job done, and so does theirs, neither one is wrong. To 'correct' me because I don't adhere to their personal preference, that IS wrong! But instead of being mature and accepting reality, they call us 'different', 'freaks', 'quirky', 'disabled', and they try to 'cure' us ... all because we won't adapt to a system that they can't even explain. How does that make any sense?

 

[Judge]

To 'correct' me because I don't adhere to their personal preference, that IS wrong! But instead of being mature and accepting reality, they call us 'different', 'freaks', 'quirky', 'disabled', and they try to 'cure' us ... all because we won't adapt to a system that they can't even explain. How does that make any sense?

Qualitatively as you point out, it doesn't make sense. However what if a society bases it's point-of-view quantitatively instead?

Alexis DeTocqueville had a great deal to say about such a dynamic and the "tyranny of a majority" inside a functional democracy. That those being in a 98% majority can have some scary and sweeping implications to much of any minority within any society.

What would be anyone's response if they curtly replied, "Do the math!" Scary...

 

[Grumpy Cat]

Most people don't understand the difference between right v wrong and personal preference. If my method gets the job done, and so does theirs, neither one is wrong. To 'correct' me because I don't adhere to their personal preference, that IS wrong! But instead of being mature and accepting reality, they call us 'different', 'freaks', 'quirky', 'disabled', and they try to 'cure' us ... all because we won't adapt to a system that they can't even explain. How does that make any sense?

The "personal preference" thing like what your Ma was doing might be because that's the only way she knew how to do it and she could only teach it that way - by you doing it a different way then its like you went off on your own and really didn't learn it from her. When an NT teaches someone something they always think their way is the best and you will never change the way they do that particular thing - like the saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". The thing with parents I think is that they want to pass on certain things they have learned to their children - your Ma thought she was teaching you something she has been doing for years and what she thought was the best way to do it.

The last part about the names shouldn't be done by either side - NT or Aspie. I've read several posts on this site about how some Aspies really think about NT's (not good things). Both sides are "different" from the other and neither side will be able to "cure" or change the other side. That's why I came up with the NT/Aspie threads in hope that NT's and Aspies can try to understand each other better.

 

[KassieMac]

The "personal preference" thing like what your Ma was doing might be because that's the only way she knew how to do it and she could only teach it that way - by you doing it a different way then its like you went off on your own and really didn't learn it from her. When an NT teaches someone something they always think their way is the best and you will never change the way they do that particular thing - like the saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". The thing with parents I think is that they want to pass on certain things they have learned to their children - your Ma thought she was teaching you something she has been doing for years and what she thought was the best way to do it.

The last part about the names shouldn't be done by either side - NT or Aspie. I've read several posts on this site about how some Aspies really think about NT's (not good things). Both sides are "different" from the other and neither side will be able to "cure" or change the other side. That's why I came up with the NT/Aspie threads in hope that NT's and Aspies can try to understand each other better.

I see what you're saying about Mom's way of doing things, but an important part of teaching is being knowing what makes a difference to the final outcome and what doesn't. Someone on this thread mentioned the duration of stirring, which seems far more important to me, as is the heat level and several other things. But she didn't have the patience to teach me what's important, because she couldn't let go of the insignificant details. I'm not saying all NTs lack maturity or patience, but Mom certainly did. Also, I have to say that I never tried to change the way she did anything ... I wasn't trying to "teach an old dog" (she would die if she heard that being applied to her!) I just couldn't remember which way she wanted me to go, because I didn't understand what difference it made.

She also couldn't teach me to tie my shoes. She would get extremely frustrated that I didn't know ... I guess it embarrassed her in front of her neighbors ... but she'd do it very quickly, with her hands blocking my view, and so fast I couldn't tell what she was doing. I was too young to articulate these things, but I remember them clearly. All I could say was "I can't see, do it again." Eventually I figured out a way that works just to keep her from yelling at me ... years later I noticed that my friends do it differently ... and I still have no idea how Mom does it. Does that make me 'wrong'? Frankly I think it makes me a creative problem-solver. NTs (in general) have no idea how much it takes for us to get by in this world, and I appreciate your efforts to learn how to bridge that gap.

 

[Judge]

Sorry..I'm cracking up over some of this given my rather weak cooking abilities.

Reminds me of making my "Beef Alfredo".....where it does count in stirring the noodles once they go into a boiling mixture for at least seven minutes, then let it simmer for two minutes. I know what happens if you only occasionally stir it. I know what happens if you switch the amount of water for milk into the mixture. And I know what happens if you do it all without actually bringing it to a boil.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

I see what you're saying about Mom's way of doing things, but an important part of teaching is being knowing what makes a difference to the final outcome and what doesn't. Someone on this thread mentioned the duration of stirring, which seems far more important to me, as is the heat level and several other things. But she didn't have the patience to teach me what's important, because she couldn't let go of the insignificant details.

My Ma has tried to teach me some things regarding cooking and I have other ways of doing it, but no matter how much I try to tell her my way is quicker and easier (there are so many new cooking devices out now) she still wants to do it "her way" which is the hard way. Like I said about the "old dog thing" - Old Dog = Ma (and I mean that in a funny way). Sometimes I think she gets sad because I don't do something her way. It kinda reminds me of this western movie I saw where this old woman was dying and the only important thing to her was for her daughter to learn the things she had learned - if she was able to pass down to her daughter what she had learned during her life then her life wasn't a waste and part of her would be carried on in her daughter. I know, NT's are weird sometimes, but sentiment is a big part of who we are.

About the shoe tying, your Ma really should have been more patient with that. She shouldn't have yelled at you, but good job on figuring it out yourself!

 

[bentHnau]

Which makes me wonder, is that why NTs can't remember things that seem to naturally stick with me (like word-for-word conversations or spoken agreements) because their memory is used up memorizing the 'right' way to do everything? Personally I'd rather have a sharp memory for things I find relevant, and when other situations arise I observe them and use common sense. In my view it's more practical & efficient, but NTs often see it as 'wrong'.

Hypothesis I just cooked up: Empathizing-based memory vs. systematizing-based memory? The "right' way to do things is often largely socially constructed (passed down from parents to children or a cultural element). Such things would impress upon a socially-oriented mind and therefore be easier to remember for such a person. In contrast, the way you (and I) remember seems to be based on what makes the most practical sense.

 

[LoneHeart]

If someone hem haws around with a response, it usually means they can't make up their mind and are "wishy washy" or they are trying to come up with a lie of some kind and are really bad at lying. An instant emotional response means it is a "truthful" response and came off the top of the persons head so it must be actually how that person feels about that topic. It's kinda like when an Aspie tells you something off the top of their head - even though it blunt, it's exactly how they think of that topic.

If someone hem haws around with a response, it usually means they can't make up their mind and are "wishy washy" or they are trying to come up with a lie of some kind and are really bad at lying. An instant emotional response means it is a "truthful" response and came off the top of the persons head so it must be actually how that person feels about that topic. It's kinda like when an Aspie tells you something off the top of their head - even though it blunt, it's exactly how they think of that topic.

This makes me think of times in the past that I would tell an NT the truth about something, but they would insists that I was lying about something despite the fact that there was no actual evidence to believe so, and of course when the truth came out I never got an actual apology either. I am guessing that the way I spoke in combination with my lack of eye contact is the reason why.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

This makes me think of times in the past that I would tell an NT the truth about something, but they would insists that I was lying about something despite the fact that there was no actual evidence to believe so, and of course when the truth came out I never got an actual apology either. I am guessing that the way I spoke in combination with my lack of eye contact is the reason why.

Well, Mr. LoneHeart, I would say for you to go back to that person and ask for an apology and tell them how you really feel about the way they treated you.

 

[Ereth]

This makes me think of times in the past that I would tell an NT the truth about something, but they would insist that I was lying about something despite the fact that there was no actual evidence to believe so, and of course when the truth came out I never got an actual apology either. I am guessing that the way I spoke in combination with my lack of eye contact is the reason why.

Yeah. You probably looked a bit too nervous. Avoiding eye contact is considered one of the big tells when trying to spot a liar (I'm not saying you were lying; it's just an unfortunate overlap for us awkward folks).

 

[KassieMac]

Yeah. You probably looked a bit too nervous. Avoiding eye contact is considered one of the big tells when trying to spot a liar (I'm not saying you were lying; it's just an unfortunate overlap for us awkward folks).

That's actually an incredibly common misconception ... a liar will maintain eye contact to appear confident & honest, and to see if the person believes them. Even someone who is not nervous and is telling the truth will break eye contact occasionally, when someone who's lying holds eye contact much longer.

 

[Ereth]

Noted. I suppose I should have been more specific. That's a mistake I seem to make often. People trying to get away with a lie will often gaze down (kids do this all the time), or their gazes will dart. Of course, relying on the eyes alone isn't enough to determine for sure if someone is lying.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

Noted. I suppose I should have been more specific. That's a mistake I seem to make often. People trying to get away with a lie will often gaze down (kids do this all the time), or their gazes will dart. Of course, relying on the eyes alone isn't enough to determine for sure if someone is lying.

Someone who is telling the truth will look away for a few seconds
A really bad liar will look away for long periods - that's prob why Aspies get mistaken for lying when they aren't.
A really good liar will stare you down.

 

[KassieMac]

Noted. I suppose I should have been more specific. That's a mistake I seem to make often. People trying to get away with a lie will often gaze down (kids do this all the time), or their gazes will dart. Of course, relying on the eyes alone isn't enough to determine for sure if someone is lying.

Not at all ... that's a perfectly valid possibility, that the person thought LoneHeart was lying because of awkwardness with eye contact. I wasn't trying to correct you, just trying to add to the conversation. I've never felt like I have a huge problem with eye contact, but people rarely believe what I say ... I haven't figured that one out yet.

 

[Ste11aeres]

The last part about the names shouldn't be done by either side - NT or Aspie. I've read several posts on this site about how some Aspies really think about NT's (not good things). Both sides are "different" from the other and neither side will be able to "cure" or change the other side. That's why I came up with the NT/Aspie threads in hope that NT's and Aspies can try to understand each other better.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of bitterness among Aspies. Part of it might be the result of pain and of having frequently been the recipient of bad treatment. But it is unfortunate.
And there is a human tendency-that can be found in probably every group of humans-to want to believe that one's own group is superior.

 

[Ste11aeres]

"Occam's Razor" comes to mind. Th

ANd Juat the simplest explanation is most often the most plausible one.

Personal peeve,
I dislike how that saying is attributed to Ockham even though he never said it-Aquinas in the century before him did say something like it-and it is almost contradictory to Ockham's philosophy.

(Judge, I know you weren't trying to say anything about who historically actually said that )

 

[Judge]

Personal peeve,
I dislike how that saying is attributed to Ockham even though he never said it-Aquinas in the century before him did say something like it-and it is almost contradictory to Ockham's philosophy.

(Judge, I know you weren't trying to say anything about who historically actually said that )

Interesting. I went looking, and found while the saying attributed to Occam that it was actually common principle in medieval philosophy. So how did Occam get the credit for this? Or is the use of his name simply a way to coin the phrase for its meaning rather than its originator?

I freely admit that learned of this saying most definitely not from a scholarly source.