A tale of three conversations
Jan. 9th, 2023 09:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greenstormPerson 1: responds to a statement I make, asking me for more info. Sounds ok. I provide the info. So far so good.
Person 2: makes a statement I have a response to, not directed at me. I comment briefly on the statement, careful to avoid the implication that the statement and my comment reflect on Person 2.
Person 3: provides lots of metadata/information about something I'm interested in, not directing it at me. Fantastic.
Now folks begin to strongly differentiate:
Person 1: informs me that the additional information I provide is in contradiction to my original statement. Demonstrates stigma around neurodiversity. Tells me I'd probably like them. I gently suggest a little education.
Person 2: asks clarifying questions, and pushes back with thoughtful and curious arguements. I provide related information and also take some onboard, cueing in plain language that I'm not trying to be prescriptive.
Person 3: just keeps talking about plants. I also talk about plants, and working with plants.
Significant differences in my experiences here. It gets better:
Person 1: states that they don't need education because they know autistic people. Appears to be offended at the suggestion. Implies that long-term exposure to autistic people means that they have nothing to learn ("not a noob"). Is dismissive of the whole of my posts on autism over time, mischaracterizing some of it. I feel defensive and unseen. My PDA is on high.
Person 2: carefully explains why they reject one of the basic premises of the conversation, based on experience and on context, without implying that anyone else needs to do so (which is a pretty good conversational trick tbh). Allows me space to accept this as definitely true, and lie that alongside the original conversation and its base in the premise to also be true. I'm pretty happy with the way this turned out. Interesting ideas were exchanged, which both people probably would not have come to on their own, and lots of room was left for each participant to have or alter their own beliefs. It felt like a dance.
Person 3: mentions they're autistic in passing and goes back to talking about working with plants. Eventually drops out of the conversation around bedtime. This was a joy.
Takeaways:
Holy does declarative language make a difference. Someone telling me what I think, and especially what I think about them, is really hard to recover from. It's bad enough when someone is telling me I don't like them, but someone telling me I do like them? That's not just a misread of the room, it's a misread of the country.
Curiosity and questions will make me engage. Someone who makes it clear they're adding nuance to a statement I've made, or who's adding additional information, is generally welcome. It helps when I can understand someone's conversational goal.
Vibes of arguments from authority rather than just explaining the argument can be done so I'll accept them, but it really is difficult to do well.
I do seem to align myself with the autistic community, though I'm not sure how much of that is because of the slogan "if you know one autistic person, you know one autistic person".
There are some communications (and, from other instances, some people) I just don't communicate well with. Like, the conversation is just not enjoyable. Sometimes that's only online, it varies.
I like plants and talking about them in depth.
I can like people who disagree with me.
There are folks who claim ND diagnoses without claiming to be ND, which I think is pretty fair since neurodiversity is definitely a philosophical/social change movement. There are people who use the diagnoses to describe themselves while saying at the same time they do not have those diagnoses. Masking -- hiding those traits sometimes, either when it's not safe or through habit -- is something I understand, have empathy for, and do myself sometimes and this is not that.
Seriously, though, some folks just rub me the wrong way.
Edited to add: additional take-away is that my instincts work; Person 1 sent me a bunch of stuff later about how I ignored her in high school and dismiss her as a "boring normie" (her words) and I should stop doing that because she has X Y Z non-normative qualifications. V uncomfortable.
Person 2: makes a statement I have a response to, not directed at me. I comment briefly on the statement, careful to avoid the implication that the statement and my comment reflect on Person 2.
Person 3: provides lots of metadata/information about something I'm interested in, not directing it at me. Fantastic.
Now folks begin to strongly differentiate:
Person 1: informs me that the additional information I provide is in contradiction to my original statement. Demonstrates stigma around neurodiversity. Tells me I'd probably like them. I gently suggest a little education.
Person 2: asks clarifying questions, and pushes back with thoughtful and curious arguements. I provide related information and also take some onboard, cueing in plain language that I'm not trying to be prescriptive.
Person 3: just keeps talking about plants. I also talk about plants, and working with plants.
Significant differences in my experiences here. It gets better:
Person 1: states that they don't need education because they know autistic people. Appears to be offended at the suggestion. Implies that long-term exposure to autistic people means that they have nothing to learn ("not a noob"). Is dismissive of the whole of my posts on autism over time, mischaracterizing some of it. I feel defensive and unseen. My PDA is on high.
Person 2: carefully explains why they reject one of the basic premises of the conversation, based on experience and on context, without implying that anyone else needs to do so (which is a pretty good conversational trick tbh). Allows me space to accept this as definitely true, and lie that alongside the original conversation and its base in the premise to also be true. I'm pretty happy with the way this turned out. Interesting ideas were exchanged, which both people probably would not have come to on their own, and lots of room was left for each participant to have or alter their own beliefs. It felt like a dance.
Person 3: mentions they're autistic in passing and goes back to talking about working with plants. Eventually drops out of the conversation around bedtime. This was a joy.
Takeaways:
Holy does declarative language make a difference. Someone telling me what I think, and especially what I think about them, is really hard to recover from. It's bad enough when someone is telling me I don't like them, but someone telling me I do like them? That's not just a misread of the room, it's a misread of the country.
Curiosity and questions will make me engage. Someone who makes it clear they're adding nuance to a statement I've made, or who's adding additional information, is generally welcome. It helps when I can understand someone's conversational goal.
Vibes of arguments from authority rather than just explaining the argument can be done so I'll accept them, but it really is difficult to do well.
I do seem to align myself with the autistic community, though I'm not sure how much of that is because of the slogan "if you know one autistic person, you know one autistic person".
There are some communications (and, from other instances, some people) I just don't communicate well with. Like, the conversation is just not enjoyable. Sometimes that's only online, it varies.
I like plants and talking about them in depth.
I can like people who disagree with me.
There are folks who claim ND diagnoses without claiming to be ND, which I think is pretty fair since neurodiversity is definitely a philosophical/social change movement. There are people who use the diagnoses to describe themselves while saying at the same time they do not have those diagnoses. Masking -- hiding those traits sometimes, either when it's not safe or through habit -- is something I understand, have empathy for, and do myself sometimes and this is not that.
Seriously, though, some folks just rub me the wrong way.
Edited to add: additional take-away is that my instincts work; Person 1 sent me a bunch of stuff later about how I ignored her in high school and dismiss her as a "boring normie" (her words) and I should stop doing that because she has X Y Z non-normative qualifications. V uncomfortable.
