Tag: social skills

People might not understand your body language

Real Social Skills

Body language that comes naturally to some autistic people can be completely invisible to most neurotypical people.

For example, many autistic people respond to questions by nodding their head very slightly. It can feel like a bigger movement than it actually is, and sometimes people don’t notice it. If you’re nodding and people are ignoring you, it might just be that they don’t understand your body language.

Similarly, neurotypical people don’t usually understand the range of things that flapping and various forms of stimming can mean. They tend to read it as distress or as annoying behavior. They don’t usually understand it as body language. Since they lack the skill to understand body language correctly, it can be worth telling them things explicitly.

For instance, if someone doesn’t understand the kind of flapping that means hello, it might be worth saying hello with your voice when you want to greet them.

Sometimes neurotypical people intentionally ignore autistic body language, but sometimes they just don’t understand it.

The basic problem with social skills education

Real Social Skills

Human interaction is really, really complicated.

No one understands it all the way.

Almost every rule has major exceptions. Anything stated in a clear way is going to be oversimplified in some way.

There aren’t rules so much as cultures and traditions that everyone finds their own way to work with.

The most anyone can really say most of the time is “this is sort of how it works a lot of the time” or, “this is probably going to be the case for almost everyone, if not absolutely everyone”. It’s hard to be honest about that, especially when you’re talking about an extremely important area of interaction like physical boundaries.

In addition, people will tell you all kinds of things they wish were true. One example is how people will teach kids “tell an adult” even in situations in which adults are unlikely to care about bullying. Or “tell them it hurts your feelings” because they want that to work.

Writing this blog, I understand more and more why people do things like that. It’s hard not to. But, it’s important. Everything is more complicated than I’m describing; even when I’m mostly right. (And sometimes I’m not.)

I’m saying things that I think are true, as well as I can describe them. But, don’t just believe me. And, particularly, if you think it’s more complicated than I think it is, don’t assume that I’m right and you’re wrong.

Short version: Social skills are skills, and they’re complicated and to a large extent different for everyone. All descriptions, and especially all rules, are approximations are best.

Inclusion and accessibility don’t go without saying

Real Social Skills

People don’t know that you will meet their access needs unless you tell them you will. Many people won’t, and people with disabilities can’t read your mind to figure out your intentions.

It goes a long way towards easing stress for everyone if you talk about access explicitly, rather than assuming it goes without saying that you will do the right thing.

For instance, if your store sign says “no dogs allowed” it should also say something like “except service dogs” (don’t say guide dogs specifically, because there are a lot of reasons other than blindness that some people have service animals)

  • This sends the message that you know service dogs exist
  • And that you’re not going to kick them out of the store for having a service dog
  • This does not go without saying; people with service dogs get illegally kicked out of stores all the time

Similarly, if you ban laptops/electronics, it’s important to say “except when they are needed by students with disabilities.” (and not to demand proof of diagnosis).

If you’re organizing a retreat and there is a rule against outside food, it’s important to either make an exception for people with dietary needs, or else work with people to provide them food they can eat. And to make it explicit that you will do this, because it very much does not go without saying.

If you’re advertising an event and it’s in an accessible venue (which it should be), put that information on the fliers (and make sure it’s true). That doesn’t go without saying. Many organizations whose values suggest that they should care about accessibility routinely hold events in completely inaccessible venues. No one will know that you’re doing it the right way unless you tell them.

There are any number of other examples.

Short version: Keep in mind that people with disabilities can’t read your mind, and make it explicit that you will meet access needs, especially if your statements or rules suggest that you won’t.

Sometimes things suck

Real Social Skills

Sometimes things suck.

Looking on the bright side doesn’t always help. Positive thinking doesn’t always help. Gratitude and mindfulness don’t always help. Those things help in some situations, but they’re not a universal cure that will fix everything.

Noticing that things suck isn’t what makes them suck, and pretending that things are ok will not make them better. 

Sometimes people act like it’s your fault for noticing, like if you’d just have a positive attitude, nothing would be bad. But it doesn’t work that way. Taking a positive attitude only fixes things when your attitude is the problem. Sometimes it isn’t.

Sometimes things really are that bad, and it’s ok to acknowledge that they are that bad. When things are actually bad externally, being realistic about what’s going on can make things a lot easier to manage. 

(Even if, right now, you can’t see any way to make them better.)

“Well, he throws chairs at people!”

Real Social Skills
Content warning: talks about abuse of people with disabilities in schools and other programs, and ways people rationalize it.
 
A reader asked:
 
Thing about “last resort”- people will often make brutal things to do look connected to things they are not connected to. “You pinned him to the floor?” “Well, he throws chairs at people!” failing to mention that the pinning to the floor was actually because he threw a pencil. Even if it is factually true that the kid sometimes throws chairs at people.
 
realsocialskills said: 
 
Yes, absolutely.
 
Another thing that can happen is that someone will be described as “he throws chairs at people!” even if he did that one time five years ago.
 
Or if another teacher *told* them that he threw chairs at people, and they don’t ask for details. And maybe what actually happened is that he picked up a chair one time, and they decided that meant he was going to throw it. Or he habitually throws chairs, but never actually at people.

Distinguishing between gaslighting and distorted thoughts

Real Social Skills
A reader asked:
how do you tell the difference between when someone is gaslighting you and when you’re doing the distorted thinking thing from anxiety/depression? (for example you KNOW they’re judging you because they’re your parent and you’ve learned what that LOOK means but now they say they’re not judging you which means you can’t trust your own perceptions)
realsocialskills said:
One thing that’s important here is that distorted thinking and gaslighting are not mutually exclusive. When you know that you have distorted thinking, gaslighting abusers sometimes exploit that to get you to doubt your perceptions. Even when you are having an episode of actively distorted thinking, that doesn’t mean that the things someone else wants you to believe are necessarily true.
I think there are a couple of things that can help to sort out what’s really going on and what’s distorted thinking: outside perspective, and paying attention to your perceptions over time.
Regarding paying attention to your perceptions over time: Even if you have depression, you’re not always going to be equally depressed. Even if you have anxiety, you’re not always going to be equally anxious. If you still don’t like what someone is doing to you even when you’re not actively anxious or depressed, it’s probably not distorted thinking.
Also, if every time you object to something someone does, they consistently convince you that it’s distorted thinking, something is probably wrong for real. Nobody is perfect, and sometimes you’re both depressed *and* reasonably objecting to something. If someone consistently uses your mental illness to try to make conflicts go away, that’s gaslighting and wrong even if your perspective actually is distorted.
 (That said, if you’re actively anxious or depressed, it can be hard to tell in the moment whether or not something is a pattern. It’s possible to feel like it is a pattern when it isn’t, due to distorted thinking. That’s a reason why it can be really helpful to pay attention to how you feel over time.)
One way to keep track of how you feel over time is to write a journal. If you write a journal, you can pay attention to how you felt yesterday and whether you still feel that way today. Writing down your perspective is a more reliable way to track things over time than relying on memory. It’s hard to have accurate memories of how you’ve felt over time, and it’s particularly difficult to have accurate memories of what you thought when your thinking was distorted. (That said, journaling does not work for everyone, and if you can’t do it, that doesn’t mean you can’t figure things out.)
Outside perspective can also help a lot. That’s one reason that therapy is very helpful to a lot of people who struggle with distorted thinking. If you can find a therapist who you can trust to have a good sense of when you’re probably getting something right and when it’s probably depression/anxiety-related distorted thinking. This backfires horribly if your therapist *isn’t* trustworthy. I don’t really have any advice about how to find a good therapist (I wish I did, and if I ever figure it out, I’ll post about it), but I know that for many people it is both possible and important to find a good therapist.
Personal blogging can also help as a way to track your perceptions over time and get feedback, but be careful about that. Personal blogging attracts two kinds of people who can create problems for those who struggle with distorted thinking: mean people who try to make you feel awful about yourself, and people who unconditionally offer you validation no matter what you say or do. Neither of those kinds of perspectives are helpful for sorting things out. In some ways, unconditional validation is particularly dangerous, *especially* if there’s a possibility that you’re abusing someone.
Friends and relatives can also sometimes be really helpful, particularly if they know the people involved or observe things.
If you have a sibling you can trust (not everyone does, but some people do), you might be able to have this kind of conversation:
  • You: Sarah, when Mom made that face, was she judging me or was I imagining it?
  • Sarah: Yeah, that’s definitely her judgey face.
  • or, depending on what she thinks:
  • Sarah: Actually, I think she probably didn’t mean it that way this time. She just talked to me about her obnoxious boss and I think it was her pissed at my boss face.
Similarly, friends sometimes have a really good sense of what’s going on.
The caution about blogging goes for consulting friends/family and other forms of peer support. Be careful about people who offer unconditional validation of all of your thoughts and feelings no matter what. That can end up reinforcing distorted thinking, which is not going to help you learn how to improve your perspectives and trust yourself when your perceptions are accurate.
People who are offering you useful perspective will sometimes tell you that they think your perceptions are off base, and they will not be jerks about it when they are critical. They will also not try to coerce you into adopting their perspective. Sometimes they will be wrong. Sometimes you will disagree with them and be right. You are allowed to think for yourself, even if your thinking is sometimes distorted. No one else can think for you, even if you go to them for perspective and help sorting things out.
tl;dr: Gaslighting and distorted thinking are not mutually exclusive. It’s common to experience both, even simultaneously. If you have distorted thinking, people inclined to gaslight you tend to exploit it. Tracking your perceptions over time, and getting outside perspective, make it much easier to sort out what’s actually going on. Sometimes therapy is helpful. Sometimes blogging is helpful. Sometimes friends and family are helpful. Be careful about trusting people who are mean to you or who offer unconditional validation.

There are different kinds of neutrality.

Real Social Skills

Content note: this post uses examples involving people doing awful things to explain why neutrality can be bad

One kind of neutrality is fake. It pretends to be a matter of principle. People who do this aggressively object to taking sides, and push you to see all sides as equally valid. That’s a bad attitude to take because sometimes the sides to a conflict aren’t equally valid.

For instance, when someone asks a guy to stop hitting on her and he gets offended, there are not two valid sides. When a parent deprives a child of food, there are not two valid sides. When people claim that vaccines cause autism, refuse to vaccinate, and cause outbreaks of preventable diseases, there are not two valid sides. Pretending that there are two valid sides ends up making you complicit in harm done to people who are being hurt.

But that is not the only kind of neutrality. Not all kinds of neutrality are objectionable. It is often ok to stay out of things. Sometimes you’re in them and there’s no way to be neutral that isn’t effectively taking a side by default. But sometimes you can actually stay out of them.

Sometimes neutrality means recognizing that you don’t understand an issue, and choosing to stay out of it, at least for now. A lot of stuff is really complicated to understand. No one can understand every issue where there are sides.

For example:

  • If you’re not in a position to be making military decisions or foreign policy, it’s ok to decide you don’t understand a certain conflict and be neutral about it (so long as you’re not pressuring other people to think it’s wrong to take sides)
  • If you don’t understand a piece of legislation, it’s often ok to not have an opinion on it, even if it’s related to an issue that’s important to your community (unless it’s in some way your job to understand it, eg: if you run an advocacy organization.)

It’s ok to stay out of many things, if you’re not in a position in which you have a heightened obligation to take a side because you have specific responsibility for what happens. Nobody understands everything important; nobody *can* understand everything important. You don’t have to drop everything until you feel up to taking a position on every issue that someone in your life cares about.

Another kind of neutrality is offering certain kinds of help to people who meet certain criteria, or even anyone who asks, without regard to who they are, what they’ve done, and without taking a position on whether they deserve it. That can be a good thing, or a bad thing, in ways that I’m not sure how to explain.

For example:

  • Operating a food bank and giving food to anyone who needs it
  • Advocating for better conditions in prisons for all prisoners, even those convicted of awful things, without investigating to see how strong the evidence is that the people you’re protecting did awful things

Short version: Neutrality means a lot of different things. Some are good, some are bad. Sometimes it’s ok to stay out of things. It’s not ok to aggressively insist that there are always two sides to everything or to refuse to ever take sides on anything as a matter of principle.

Setting the stage for disclosure of awkward or stigmatized things

Real Social Skills
A reader asked:
I’m on disability for mental illness and I recently moved to a new place. (I moved because the area I lived was rather toxic for me and I have a best friend here who is great support.) This means I’m meeting a lot of new people, and a lot of them open conversations by asking about work or why I moved here. I can only get by with “non-answers” for so long, and sometimes there are people who I would like to tell more to but not yet. I don’t know how to handle these questions. Suggestions/ideas?
realsocialskills said:
I don’t know much about the specific situation you’re in, but I do know some things about setting the stage for disclosure of awkward or stigmatized things:
First of all, it’s easier to disclose later if you don’t lie now. (There are reasons that lying might still be a good idea sometimes, but it has the downside of making later disclosure more difficult.) If you’ve already told a lie, then if you want to tell the truth you also have to effectively disclose that you lied about it, which can be awkward. (This isn’t necessarily always a huge deal. Some people will absolutely understand why you lied. But it does make things a bit harder).
Second, there are intermediate areas between telling the whole truth and giving a complete non-answer. You might be better off erring on the side of giving partial answers. Partial answers send the message that, yeah, there’s probably a story there, and now isn’t the time, but maybe you’ll get there eventually.
Partial answers can be things like:
  • “I was dealing with some medical issues and moved to be closer to supportive friends.” (I don’t know if that line works well for mental health – I feel like it should, but I don’t actually *know*, and I hope that people who’ve dealt with disclosing that degree of psych disability will weigh in)
  • “Things were really hard where I was living before.”
  • “I’m out of work right now.”/“I’m not able to work right now.”
  • “I’m between things.”
  • “It’s a long story.”

Partial answers work best when you combine them with an immediate subject change. The most effective way to change the subject is by asking them an open-ended question about something they are likely to want to talk about:

  • Them: Why did you move here?
  • You: Things were really hard where I was before and I wanted a change.
  • You: Do you know any good bookstores here? I’m always excited to learn where the new ones are in a new place.

Some kinds of questions that work well for changing the subject:

Asking them about themself:

  • Most people like to talk about themselves
  • If you get people to talk about themselves and listen to them, they will usually enjoy it and not mind that you haven’t told them much about yourself yet
  • It also can be a way for you to find out more about them and get a better sense of what it might be safe or comfortable to tell them
  • This works best if you ask them something specific but open-ended, eg questions like “How long have you lived here?” “What do you do?” work better than “Can you tell me about yourself?”
  • If they ask you a question, it’s often particularly effective to ask them the same question after you give a partial answer. People generally ask questions in getting-to-know-you contexts that they are eager to answer themselves.

Asking them about the place you’ve just moved to:

  • Most people like to feel competent and like they have expert knowledge
  • So they generally like to explain things they know well to people who are eager to find out about them
  • Asking about the area and listening to their answers is likely to make them feel happy and competent
  • Which can lead to them feeling positive about the conversation and happy that they met you
  • And, again, it’s a way to find out more about them and how they think

Pay attention to what people tell you:

  • If you notice other people who seem nice and also give non-or-partial answers to common smalltalk questions, they might be good people to get to know a bit better
  • (Not that it’s guaranteed; sometimes people are evasive because they’re hiding something that is actually bad. And even if they’re hiding something that isn’t bad, that doesn’t necessarily mean you and they will be good friends. But it *is* a sign that they might get it.)
  • If people say awful things about psychiatric disability, exercise caution about trusting them. It’s likely that they mean it, even if they are otherwise nice.
  • Listen for people who share your interests, even a little, and talk to them. Connecting around interests bridges a lot of gaps.

Ask your friend for help:

  • If your best friend has been in the area for a while, they might have a sense of who they trust to treat you well if you disclose things to them
  • Especially if they can introduce you to nice people
  • It’s a lot less stressful to deal with this situation if you can identify some people who are likely to be nice to you once you’re ready to tell them things

All of that said: you may actually be better off just being open about things in a matter-of-fact way. That has a lot of downsides, but it also has a considerable upside:

  • If you are open about something stigmatized, then you find out fairly quickly who is going to be a jerk about it and who isn’t
  • This means that you get a lot more people being directly awful to you, but it can be a more bearable kind of awful
  • Because if people you don’t particularly care about say horrible things to you, it can only penetrate so far.
  • It hurts a lot more if it’s someone you’ve really been trying to build a friendship with for a long time.
  • It is in many ways far less stressful knowing how people are going to react than worrying about how people are going to react
  • And it also makes it *far* easier to identify people who get it and won’t be jerks
  • In particular, if you are open about things, then people who *aren’t* open about things will be able to identify you as a trustworthy person, which means you’ll be able to find each other.
  • Also, people often take cues from how you talk about a stigmatized aspect of yourself
  • If you can talk about something stigmatized in a matter-of-fact way (possibly combined with an immediate subject change), people tend to react better than if you talk about in in a more cringing way
  • This approach has a major downside too, but it’s worth considering

Short version: There are a lot of approaches to disclosing stigmatized things about yourself. You might be better off being really open about it. You might be better off disclosing more cautiously. It helps to give partial answers to questions people ask, and to change the subject. It also helps to ask people questions that they’ll want to answer, and to listen carefully to what they say.

Free speech includes the right to set editorial policy

Real Social Skills

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are about having the right to choose what you say. Part of this means being able to say what you want to say; an equally important part of free speech means the right to refrain from saying things you *don’t* want to say.

And, in a broader sense, this includes editorial policy. If you publish a magazine, you make choices about which articles to include and which articles to reject. That’s an essential part of what a magazine is. A magazine has a certain topic and point of view, expressed as much in what it does not publish as what it does.

For example:

  • Socialist journals do not publish articles in defense of capitalism
  • Medical journals do not publish articles that have not passed peer review
  • Jewish community newsletters do not publish arguments for conversion to Christianity

The fact that these types of publications only publish things that support their mission and policy is not a violation of free speech; it is an *expression* of free speech.

This is as true on the internet as it is in print media.

Deciding what to put on your website, and what *not* to put on your website, is part of how you exercise your free speech. That includes things like:

  • Posting about things you want to post about
  • Not posting about things you don’t want to post about
  • Responding to responses to your writing that you want to engage with
  • Not engaging with responses you prefer not to respond to
  • Making decision about whether you want to have comments, and if so, which kind of comments to allow

No matter what choices you make about these things on the internet, someone will accuse you of censorship and insist that their right to free speech means that you have an obligation to publish their opinions. It doesn’t. Their right to freedom of speech is about what *they* say; it does not give them the right to make *you* say anything, or to publish them, or to pay attention to them.

Free speech means you have the right to say what you want to say, and to refrain from saying things that you do not want to say.