Why are neurotypicals in charge of making up the social rules? They're not even very good at it.
Why are neurotypicals in charge of making up the social rules? They're not even very good at it.
Edit: A few people have interpreted the title as serious, so I wanna clarify that it was meant as a sarcastic joke about how little sense the neurotypical world makes to me, but it is still legitimately me asking for help understanding said neurotypical world.
Was having a conversation with a friend today about why I seem unapproachable to people online. Apparently it's for 2 reasons.
One is that I say "K." all the time, as a short way of saying okay. She pointed out that most people find this rude and offensive. This kinda baffled me, because like why? She explained that like, if somebody were to give a long emotional speech and I just responded "K." that would be offensive. That confounds me. So it's rude in one context, and neurotypicals have decided to be offended by it in all contexts? But the reason it's rude is what confuses me more. Apparently it's considered lazy because you could have just typed out the word, but like, that applies to all text speech and nobody's mad about people shortening those words.
But it got more confusing when she explained the second reason, which is that I end all of my sentences with proper punctuation, which she said "makes people feel like I'm done with the conversation and not interested." But just a second ago improper grammar was rude, and now proper grammar is rude instead.
It baffles me. You can't just use proper or improper grammar. Use too much improper grammar and you're lazy and rude. Use too little and you're also rude. But you can't just use any improper grammar, you have to use the very specific subset of improper grammar that's been deemed acceptable and not lazy (even though it's exactly as lazy as what they do consider lazy.)
To be clear, I'm not bitter, and I'm definitely gonna adjust my behavior to hopefully seem a little less rude to people. I think that's just a nice thing to do. I just find the neurotypical mind utterly fascinating. I don't think they even realize how many contradictions exist in the social rules they all so easily accept.
Your friend is at least partially misinforming you. It's fine to write k instead of ok in almost all situations. But either of them can be rude if the other person would expect more emotive words. For example here's when k is fine:
Them: Bring my pen when you come into the other room
You: k
And here's where k is not fine:
Them: Wanna go grab some drinks tonight at 8?
You: k
That's rude. They would want to hear you actually be interested in their invitation. Like saying "great" or "I'm in" or whatever.
...Ooooh. I think that's what she was trying to tell me actually and I just completely misunderstood. That second example is a type of situation I used it a lot in. I didn't realize people needed to know how interested I was. I thought they just needed a quick confirmation.
Often people are looking for some sort of validation, even when it's not obvious.
If they say "I can't join you in the bar today, I have too much work to catch up on", "K." is not a good answer. Several aspects needs to be addressed, ideally:
- That's too bad
- Next time
- Commentary on the state of work: Keep your head above water/your boss is such a jerk/we'll make up for it after your deadline on Thursday/whatever, depending on the situation and your relationship.
Basically, it's a way to show that you care about what they're telling you. It can be a bit exhausting at times.
Yay, glad I could help! Yeah essentially if they're asking something that might have an emotional aspect to it then they want to hear more than just k.
To make things more confusing, responding to an invitation to drinks with "k!" might be ok, depending on who's asking and the context.
If it's your roommate asking, and they're doing it because there's a sporting event or because drinks are an established ritual, it'd be fine. If it's your boss, or a new (potential) friend or colleague, a possible romantic interest, or a close friend and it's not something they usually do or invite you out for, then those situations have a lot more weight, and expect a more fulsome and engaged reply.
K can give the impression that you don’t care and don’t want to be bothered with it. The effort in your response is expected to be proportional to the effort it took to write the message to you.
If someone write a long personal message to you, and all you responds is K, then it gives the impression that you might not even read the message. Why even bother next time?
Proper grammar in informal settings is a difficult one, but this is my theory:
It might give the impression of mismatch in vibes. There’s a difference in informal speak and formal speak, and participants in a conversation are expected to be in the same wavelength. An extreme example, but it’s like when everybody is dressed casually at a social gathering, but you decide to show up in a three piece suit.
Saying "k" probably seems dismissive to most people
Yup. It’s saying “I’m acknowledging that I heard what you said, but only giving the bare minimum effort in responding.” It could also potentially sound sarcastic and/or condescending, depending on the tone.
It basically comes off like this thumbs up meme:
I'm not sure how helpful this will be, but I think it is misleading for you to think of these things as "rules". Calling them rules implies that people know what they are, and try to abide by them. But I don't think thats whats happening.
Since written communication conveys so much less emotion than verbal communication, people tend to read more into the textual form to infer things like emotion or intent. There aren't specific rules for this, people just pick up on patterns. For example angry or excited people tend to use capitals to "sound louder". People talking casually tend to leave out some grammar. Friendly conversations tend to have more long rambling sentences, as opposed to someone trying to prove a point with concise, well punctuated sentences.
So I think what NTs are doing is just subconsciously figuring out these patterns to determine a likely emotion/intent behind messages.
To me, "K" isn't rude for the reasons your friend tried to list, but it does sound "colder" to me, probably because my brain sees a pattern where the people who are not interested in talking to me will tend to use short succinct responses, while people happy to talk will use longer form.
But a huge part of communication, especially online, is just getting used to the people you talk to. It's happened many times that someone who seemed grumpy to me at first turned out to be very friendly, etc.
Alright. That’s bullshit. Not entirely. But it’s riddled with it. The “k” part, I understand. This can be considered rude and to be honest, it’s my way of saying “whatever dude”.
BUT that’s how I use it. I have met people who use it as a lazy but friendly way of “alright, got it”. So it depends on who uses it and what its intention is supposed to be. You either have to be incredibly nuanced or have to know the person who is using it to properly interpret it. Which your friend kinda doesn’t. I’m not blaming her. I fail at it way too often myself.
The “ending a sentence with a period” on the other hand? My answer would have been “Are you high?!” Seriously, it doesn’t make any sense and it sounds made up.
Edit: Thinking about this makes me even angry ffs.
The “ending a sentence with a period” on the other hand? My answer would have been “Are you high?!” Seriously, it doesn’t make any sense and it sounds made up.
I used to find it rude when someone ended a text message (specifically on IM platforms) with a period, though ever since some older relatives started texting I got used to it. I can also remember at least one time I ended a text message with a period because I was angry. This is also something I've noticed other people do.
In a way, since a text message already has a definitive end point, ending it with a period feels redundant. To me, this makes a period at the end almost feel like a "weak" exclamation mark.
In general I've noticed people use as little punctuation as possible when texting, instead breaking up longer thoughts into multiple short texts to compensate.
I'd noticed the thing where people send repeated short messages, but I didn't realize that's why they were doing it. I think I'm gonna have to take a middle ground though and just leave the period off my last sentence while trying to stay concise. I can't stand being interrupted in the middle of a thought so I gotta get it all out in one message.
Thing is, that knife cuts both ways, and some people find it rude when you don't use proper punctuation.
I would personally interpret the short burst thing as a tantrum, FWIW, or some other form of disregulation.
It baffled me too, but people have legit complained about this stuff to her and she's had to explain to them that I just talk like that. She has no expectation of me to change at all because she already understands my intentions perfectly well, but she told me simply because she felt I should know people were complaining.
As far as the period thing, apparently it's the last sentence I'm supposed to leave punctuation off of. I don't get it tbh. I mostly talk to people in MMOs and over Discord and apparently when I add a period to the end of the last sentence it makes people feel like I'm trying to end the conversation. It makes sense to me that people think that, given that every time I did it they'd just stop talking, but why they think that is a mystery to me. She said she thinks it's because they're just not used to it.So it seems to be some sort of linguistic peculiarity in that specific group. MMO players tend to be relatively sheltered, so it could have formed organically? This makes sense to me. It’s unlikely, but it sounds better than “let’s make shit up and fuck with him”.
I don’t know how I would handle this. Most people I play with online are even deeper in the spectrum than I am. Do me a favour, the next time they have an conversation, just throw a single punctuation in the chat and see how they react.
I agree with so many folks on this thread- your friend is pushing one set of social queues that they abide by, but that isn't everyone.
I think this has more to do with communication over text, as there are NO physical cues to help gauge tone. I'm not autistic, however when texting I've learned to practice mirroring for each person I chat with. If I notice they end their sentences without punctuation, I'll adopt that. If I notice more emojis, I'll have fun with that, or hold off if it seems that they don't use them.
A big one for me is using "!". I usually will use "!" to signal excitement/ friendly tone, however I've learned some people see it as an angry tone and thought I was freaking out about what they said.
When I talked to my therapist, he noted with his clients that 90% of disputes start over social media/ texting. I almost lost a friend when they sent me a lecture from a professor talking about the Israeli/ Palestine conflict. A few days later I saw a funny music composition video titled "old MacDonald had a lobotomy". I thought I was just sending a funny video, but she thought it was in response to her video, and I got a stern text that I had to clear up.
I agree after reading the rest of the thread, but I think that may also have partially been her intention. I hang out primarily with the same group she does, so she's trying to help me get along with that particular group. Even so, her tips could help me come off as less robotic in general, even if they're not strict rules that need to be followed, so I think I'm gonna still try to take her tips and just adapt them to myself.
Definitely gonna stop saying "K." though. I don't have the skill to be nuanced enough to not use it improperly. Additionally, I always assumed people just wouldn't try to gauge my tone over text if I didn't specify it, but I guess unlike me it's important to neurotypicals to understand how each other feel, even if they have to assume, so I'll just have to cut down on the assumptions they have to make.Very fair! Also I'm learning it's fine to stomp on the eggshells and send a text saying "so hey, here's what I mean when I say K" or something like that so the people you chat with are on the same page. It seems awkward, but also could be a way to avoid even more awkward situations later.
Communication is a two way street. It's both about the message the sender is trying to convey, but also the way the receiver interprets it. As a (mostly) neurotypical thinker, this is even hard for many of us to get right.
An example for clarity is the response your getting in the comments to your friends comments. Various people are disagreeing and agreeing to different levels. Conversation is navigating the complicated dynamics to as the sender, sending your message in a way the receiver will get the impression you are trying to give, and as a receiver, trying to understand the intent of the message the sender is trying to show.
There aren't many hard or fast rules. In different online communities, different styles and patterns can conotate different things. There are patterns and styles I use here on Lemmy for example, I would never use in a sports online community because they would be interpreted differently there.
My advice is don't beat yourself up about it. If you're not getting the type of interactions you're expecting in a particular community, that might be the time to ask for feedback or see if your communication style is different than the local group there. But the ephemeral nature of these online conversations make it the perfect place to experiment and find a communication style that works for you and gets the response from others you are looking for.
I'm no expert on neurotypicals, but I've observed them for a long time as an ADHD neurodivergent. "K" seems to give them the impression of disinterest, like saying "K, can we move on?" Kind of thing, like what was said wasn't interesting, or important; but context is important for them. If you're taking direction eg: "hey, OP. Push that button, would you?"; in that case it's fine to use "K" as a reply, just to confirm you heard the instruction, while you go to do the thing. In contexts where they're telling you something that seems important to them, whether the information is actually important or it is important to the speaker, and you reply with "K" then that's where they get offended by it.
It's nuanced and neurotypicals don't understand themselves well enough to adequately explain these nuances, because they go on feeling more than logic. There is a sort of logic to it, but they don't understand what it is.
Yes and the instances where there is no logic to a rule it’s by convention instead, or referential in some way
ꓘ
Found the Australian
K
K
K.*
k.
The punctuation is total bullshit. 100% ignore them. Typing just K definitely is a bit informal for all but the most casual conversations with close relationships. I will 100% drop an👌👍 online when I encounter someone who just wants to argue or be mean to piss them off. Nothing enrages a gen z troll like 👌👍.
The punctuation thing has actually been pointed out to me on a couple occasions before. One of my exs thought it was weird and said it "gave the impression I'd be mad if other people's grammar wasn't perfect." So apparently it does bother some people, but it's probably more of a straw that broke the camel's back situation, where I already speak so formally in the first place that it makes me look stuck up.
You already have a bunch of discussion on how "k" can seem dismissive as it's the lowest effort affirmative reply possible, but I'd add that "K." can seem worse, because it's the same message with more effort - if everyone has understood/assumed that "k" is the lowest effort/energy communication, capitalizing and punctuating it indicates that you do have the extra energy, you just choose to spend that energy on emphasizing the dismissive response, rather than on using a different one. It has the same connotations, but more emphatically and more intentionally (or, that's how it comes across).
I also think in general taking the effort to use correct punctuation and grammar seems more formal, less natural, and hence more emotionally distant. It can also seem more emphatic or assertive, like by using more correct grammar/punctuation than everyone else, you're positioning yourself as generally more "correct" than they are. The combination of emotional distance and implicit high ground can come across as a bit hostile, or at least standoffish.
The reverse could also be true - if you were in a culture or context where everyone else was using correct grammar and punctuation and you weren't, it could come across as implying that they're not worth caring about. For example, in work communications, or maybe when talking to members of an older generation or people from a country that uses more formal language.
In general, probably the smoothest approach would be to observe how others in a given circle communicate, and try to match their level of formality. I guess this is basically masking. If you'd rather not change how you communicate to fit in, you could explicitly discuss this with people - essentially say, "hey, I'm aware that my natural style is different from yours, and I want to be clear that this isn't indicative of my emotional state, or attitude to you, or any intended tone, this is just my natural baseline".
At the end of the day the options will always be a) mask, b) be awkwardly explicit, or c) get used to being misunderstood.
... this was really meant to be a quick addition about the difference between "k" and "K." but sometimes my comments turn into essays for no good reason. Hope something in here was useful anyway.
As far as I know, I am neurotypical, so mind that when reading my comment.
Regarding the title of your question:
Because neurotypicals are the majority of people. As usual, majorities set norms and actively or passively decide upon common concepts like ethical or societal rules.Regarding the issue you described:
Even though it might seem exhausting, I think it's important to see people – regardless whether neurotypical or not – not as a homogeneous mass but as a highly variable mixture.Sure, even then there are common rules like don't punch people. But those are the broad and general ground rules.
Then, there are the nuances, which can be highly individual.
In your example, regarding the punctuation, use of grammar as well as verbosity of replies, I would react completely different than your friend. I wouldn't mind any of those things, which seemed rude to her. Okay, maybe I would feel like I weren't given the attention I hoped for if, after pouring my heart out, I just get a simple "K." as response. That would make me sad, because I was hoping for compassion and a dialouge dealing with the issue.
But apart from such things, that would probably be totally fine for me.One behaviour and two very different reactions due to two different people.
As such nuances are often individual, it's probably best to explore what kind of behaviour the other person would feel comfortable with and with which behaviour they don't. Repeat that process with everyone in your life, who you would also like to keep relations to.That's also related to a thing known as role-behaviour in psychology, which also applies to neurotypicals. When I talk to my superior at work, I behave differently than when I am at home with my wife. Then, I also behave differently with my friends. And among the friends, I learned enough about some, to know what and how I can say something to them and from which topics or phrasings it's probably best to steer away.
That's good advice, but it's also worth noting that my initial strategy was to try to hold of on saying anything at all that could be offensive until I learned what's okay and what's not, but that too ended up offending some people. The reason being that I would get close to people, but they would get closer to me faster than I was getting closer to them due to me still being overly cautious and trying to find the proper things I was allowed to say and do with them. That's partially what this is about. Trying to find the starting line so I know what's not gonna drive people away immediately.
For instance, while it's true a lot of people won't be offended by "K." or proper punctuation, I feel like in most casual contexts, people are much less likely to be offended if I don't do those things, which gives me time to get closer to people and learn more instead of driving a sizable portion away right off the bat.
Another piece of advice this friend gave me was to ask more questions. I always knew that was a good thing to do, but I was always worried people would see me as nosy if I asked the wrong ones. I learned from her that people are generally more happy by me showing interest than they'd be upset by me accidentally asking something personal.
That and the advice I've gotten in this thread has been really helpful so far. Already people are being a lot friendlier toward me, although it's gonna take a bit to change the general public opinion of me.
I'm with you on the punctuation. The k bit I think is about showing you are putting effort in to understand and care, so something slightly longer like "k... I understand" or some extra acknowledgement that shows you understand and have taken the time to take it in helps. Personally, I have a big thing about miscommunication, so knowing people have understood me and listened actively is huge to me. "K." does not express much of anything other than "I saw there was a message", so I'd want to push to check that I've actually been heard.
Hope that makes sense.
The spelling thing bothers me a lot. I don't want to catch bad habits of writing shitty just because it's whatever seems trendy at the moment.
People used to give me shit for not using smileys, so I started adding :) everywhere in text messages. Then people told me I seem passive aggressive because I use :) instead of emojis.
Joke's on them. I could never be arsed to use emojis outside of very specific contexts, and now gen Zs are making fun of them for looking like boomers with their dumb emoji use. Apparently I still come across as passive aggressive though.
I never use emojis either, except specific ones for specific contexts (I.E. the hug emoji when somebody's having a really bad day.) People have pointed it out, but unlike other things people just view it as an interesting personality quirk of mine instead of off putting.
I can relate. I often say "sure" as an affirmative. To me it sounds nice. People always think I'm being sarcastic. I mean, I am often sarcastic but not in the mean or mocking way that people take this.
"Would you like to do go to the concert with me?"
"Sure!"
crying "why don't you want to go to the concert with me???""Sure" to me is fairly neutral, emotionally. If someone invites you to something, usually they're hoping that you will be excited to go, not just willing to go. If you respond with a neutral-sounding "yes" instead of something more enthusiastic, it makes me wonder if you actually want to go.
Overall, your tone of voice when saying "sure" could communicate that enthusiasm to go, but that doesn't really work over text, so I usually try to be a lot more enthusiastic over text communication.
No one is specifically in charge of social rules. There are reasons why things are the way they are, and it seems common that geeks and people who have often operated outside of this system think that they can intentionally defy the social rules without consequence if they understand the reason for it and think they can compensate.
This sort of "social hacking" doesn't work because geeks don't fully comprehend all the reasons why things are the way they are and it ultimately blows up in their face.
If it's any consolation, my just-barely-maybe neurotypical ass uses proper punctuation and I've never had any issues. If anyone asks I just say it's a thing I do.
Yeah, it seems not everyone has an issue with it. It might be more of an issue with me because I don't often convey much emotion when I speak because I don't know how, so I probably sound dead an uninterested when I combine that with perfect punctuation. Thinking about it, I also make very sparing use of exclamation points, so maybe I just seem so dead and formal that it makes people think I'm not really into the conversation.
Your friend sounds impressively tedious.
It's unfortunate I gave that impression, because she's probably the nicest, most accepting person I know, even including other autistics. She was just trying to let me know because I've experienced significant psychological distress from my inability to connect to other people, so she's trying to help me understand why, which was a recommendation by a psychiatrist I saw.
You are attempting too hard to be a part of a group of friends who do not consider you one, and are likely willing to drop you for the smallest reason that is socially agreed amongst them.
I've been replying to group texts like that for decades and my friends do not give a fuck. You should resume replying like how your friend is telling you puts people off and see who your real friends are.
Did you do teenager k, work k, or spouse k?
I'm not sure, but I've asked people and I'm told by my friends that before they knew me better, they thought I was either being passive aggressive, or maybe I was going through something and was being rude by accident (the friend I mentioned said a lot of people were asking her if I was okay, because apparently I came across like I was upset about something.)
I'm guessing that'd be the "spouse k" then since I think that's the one that often implies "okay, but not really okay."
Stop trying to be like them. They'll never truly accept you. Many of them would prefer to destroy you. Their methods of communication are inefficient.
Fuck the NTs.
No.
Apologies for my post and respect for your appropriate response. Someone pissed in my Cheerios this morning.
Your post title grabbed my attention because I recently started watching Survivor for the first time (social event not really my pick). Anyway it's fascinating to watch their behavior. These people are constantly talking about "reading" people. They're always trying to inject meaning and intent where there is none. They are not as smart as they think they are, and they struggle with communication just as much as we do.
One thing I've noticed is NTs are constantly lying to each other then trying to "read between the lines." Not so much malicious intent as keeping your cards close to your chest sort of thing. When someone comes up and just says what they mean, their minds explode. Many of them read into what you're saying the worst possible interpretation. I'm still trying to figure this out.
I've seen a similar thing in court, where you think you're trying to document facts and distill away all the emotion and speculation. WRONG! It seems to work like Survivor where 1 + 1 = 3.
Use too much improper grammar and you're lazy and rude. Use too little and you're also rude.
Genuinely not sure what you mean by this.
It's rude to use "too little" improper grammar?
Where are you getting that from?
But to your main point:
Why are neurotypicals in charge of making up the social rules?
Why are you under the assumption that the social rules are something they all got together and agreed upon?
Social rules form over time in cultures, based on the interactions of individuals. It's part of the social zeitgeist. Neurotypical people make up the majority, they do the most social interaction, so the overall "rules" are formed by them.
As far as the first thing goes, I used to avoid using any text speech at all, only used proper punctuation, always made sure my grammar was right. People started to get really annoyed with me because of it, telling me I was being overly formal.
As far as the second thing goes, that was a sarcastic joke about how the "rules" I'm told to follow are always full of contradictions, making them hard to follow. The joke being if autistics made the rules they'd be actual rules, and efficient ones. I'm well aware of why it's not actually that way.
I hope I won't be too long on the topic. This is an historical question.
Why it's like this, why are NTs deciding for us? It began in the Renaissance period with René Descartes. He was a philosophe and saw the human body as a machine. He wrote about this vision of the human. Each organ, muscle, bones are a piece of the machine. He did a direct comparison between the human and the material.
Later in the first half of the 19th century, an astronomer, and statistician had the idea to use statistics for human. Prior, statistic were in majority an instrument used for astronomy. Adolphe Quételet studied Scottish soldiers to make statistics of the human. He went further and did not only statistics on the body. He did statistics about injuries, body, and a lot more. With all of this, Quételet invented the average person. Without statistics, you can't have an average person. This idea is important for the following. It's also the key idea at the beginning of eugenic.
Someone was very interested in this topic. At the point, he coined the word “eugenic” itself. Francis Galton was the half-cousin of Charles Darwin. He came from a wealthy family and really like the work of his half-cousin on evolution. But, Galton wanted to apply it to society. He was also inspired by the concept of the average person of Quételet. Galton diverges of both of his predecessors. For Galton, the average person was not the person in the middle. No, it was the person at the bottom. There is a shift down compared to Quételet.
The poorer, the people without education, disabled, slaves, race shouldn't be considered with Galton. There were just this average for the one able to work and earn what they need to survive. The others were not even at the bottom of the social ladder.
People with education, wealthy people, were of course at the top of this ladder. Galton also believed in birth control based on the assumption of the categorization of the human. Wealthy should reproduce as their genetic was better.
On this base, Galton developed a lot of theories that we still use nowadays, and in particular in psychology and psychiatry. But, his ideas in pathology survived.
More general, some of his ideas and theories are still around. Eugenic was very popular at the beginning of the 20th century – Galton began his work at the second half of the 19th century. People founded during this time eugenic society, university cursus, etc.
With WWII, eugenic fall in disgrace. People working in the field made a shift in their career. They went to psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, sociology, anthropology…
In the 50s and later in the 60s and 70s, a new movement emerged with anti-psychiatry. In this ideology, you will find many points of view. They had and have in common that we should not intern people that aren't the average person, in other words the norm. Yes, the average person of Galton became a norm. If people are disabled, they don't produce anything and aren't included in the norm. They interned these unproductive people. Some went against it.
But, in one side of anti-psychiatry, you had people who think that people with psyachiatric issues were faking it. The idea is that people are lazy and invented their illness, condition, difference to do nothing. These people in anti-psychiatry wanted to close the asylums, so people will have to work. Spoiler alert: It didn't work, and people ended on the street or in jail.
But, all these people thinking people were lazy were in the normal at least. This scheme continued to today, and we end with NTs in charge of deciding...
I can only recommend the read of the book “Empire of Normality; Neurodiversity and Capitalism”, by Robert Chapman.
You should ignore every single one of those people bitching about punctuation.
There are no official rules, we NT just kinda feel it, like a sixth sense and so because we are the majority and we share this ability no one is even aware of it consciously. How can you describe a sight to a blind person? It’s difficult at best and impossible at worst. It’s like an instinct. We can describe it logically but it will always be imperfect and not feasible at times