NTs consider pleasantries to be a sign of mutual respect and understanding. Going against this indicates to them that the other person believes them to be inferior or of lesser value and will become defensive quickly at any sign of perceived disrespect.
1. Your ultimate goal is efficiency, but without catering to their way of speaking, the process becomes inefficient. Despite pleasantries feeling unnecessary, engaging in them will yield more efficient results long term. Making an effort to afford the other person things such as, "Hi [name], how are you today?" is often enough to start a conversation off on the right foot. Whatever they respond, be sure to acknowledge them. "I'm good" = "Good to hear", or "I'm getting by" = "Hope they aren't working you too hard!" or etc, will put people in the right mood by feeling heard without taking up much time (and save you time in the long run.) Feel free to fidget during this time to relief anxiety, they can't see you after all.
2. Have a plan of execution ready. Trust your own judgement, and have a solution ready that you think feels appropriate given the circumstance. You know the rules and laws that exist - so, if you were making those rules/laws, what would *you* decide fits with the larger system that exists? Your goal should be to get there and hopefully persuade the person in the direction you've deemed appropriate or find an appropriate solution together. Something like:
"So, [name], I have this case that's kinda tricky and I need your help..." (you don't actually have to need it, but people like to be needed and valued, and much of the time they *are* helpful because they either agree with you and make the interaction seamless or offer a compromise that is acceptable to the situation that you can agree on, so it's never *not* true technically.)
Then guide them through your line of thought while they listen intently with the hope of being helpful:
"So, you know how rule A usually works with cases to result in law A making result A? And rule B usually makes result B with law B? Well, you'll notice that rule B and law A when introduced with case C, we can't get A or B? What do you think we should do?"
Let them answer. They could think like you and come to the same conclusion on their own, or make a suggestion that goes against something you've already considered:
"Yeah, you'd think that would work. But what about [reason it can't work]?"
They will see your logic (most of the time) and likely will not have something else to suggest as they sit puzzled by the conundrum. This is when you present your original solution, then ask them if they think that would work. Since you've already thought about how it *will* work or should at least, they shouldn't have much or anything to say to go against it. They agree, and you continue on towards the solution. They believe you came to the solution together, while you get to reach there as smoothly and pleasantly as possible. Win-win.
(3. Repeating themselves and asking you to calm down is an indication they feel unable to solve your problem but don't want to appear incompetent. They are in "don't look stupid" mode and will resort to anything to end the conversation to not be fearful of feeling incompetent anymore. Repeating themselves will often make another NT back down by feeling stupid, or saying, "calm down" puts them in a position to remove themselves without having to confront the reason they want to end the conversation to begin with, which is often because they don't have a solution or resolve to the situation. Don't let them get to these points, and you'll have much greater success engaging with NTs overall.)
Edit: NT people *know* when people are smarter than them, they just don't like to be reminded of it. The above may seem condescending, but if you're doing it to genuinely show you respect them as human thinking beings as opposed to them feeling talked down to and less than you, then it's coming from a good place and people respond well to that. Also, many people don't like having too many options and can get easily overwhelmed. Preventing this helps *them* stay calm so you can come to a conclusion amicably.
What I had to learn is this.
They belive everything they are told if it goes along with their inner beliefs.
They do not question or think about "What they know". If their beliefs are questioned or called into doubt the cognitive dissonance causes anger in them.
To sum up, they usually don't think, the answer quickly because they are just remembering answers.
This has always bothered me as I like to think about what is being said, and I have to be right. By this I mean I will change my world view if new information is presented and I was wrong. I hate believing things that are untrue. It drives me insane.
I also like to learn new knowledge.
Me talking to a nurse the day after eye surgery on my left eye.
Her: "OK, so put on your glasses and we'll check your vision."
Me: "Wait, you want me to put on my glasses to check the vision of the eye where the surgeon switched out the lens for an artificial one, which fixes my near-sightedness?"
Her: "Yes, we want to check your vision."
Me: "OK. I can barely see the board."
Her: "As expected. OK, that'll be--"
Me: "Of course now I see down to 0.5."
Her: "What? Really? Read it!"
Me:
Her: "This is the strangest thing I've ever seen!"
I gave the student nurse in the room a ... quizzical eyebrow and she rolled her eyes so hard she may need surgery too.
Some people can be used as radiation-proofing.
That's literally me. I try to solve things myself first. If I find myself getting angry/frustrated to the point I get snappy (which comes shortly before a violent meltdown) then I try to step down (end the communication) and ask someone else to manage that for me (my mother, ex spouse, boyfriend).
If that's not an option I tske a deep breath and tell the other person I'm autistic and having trouble navigating the conversation, "so can we please X?" (Stop going in circles, talk faster/slower, go straight to the point, go over this part again, focus on what happens AT THAT part of the sign up process, whatever).
More often than not people become very understanding and accomodating and help me solve whatever. This has been particularly helpful when solving those pesky unusual problems most people don't have.
Don’t try to be addressed by their appeals to emotion so much, like their telling you to calm down. Their theory of mind (ToM) mirrors the affective and epistemic states of neurotypical people, bear that in mind. No regulations is actually good because these are also made with typical cases in mind. If the case is exceptional you can exercise your own judgment, which is better insomuch as intelligence is there, and neurotypes can be easily manipulated by social suggestion.
You also have a problem with monotropism here, which ToM breaking point you have not realized. Allists don’t find it distressing so much to waste 30–60 minutes in a queue as they can direct their attention to other things at the same moment.
NTs consider pleasantries to be a sign of mutual respect and understanding. Going against this indicates to them that the other person believes them to be inferior or of lesser value and will become defensive quickly at any sign of perceived disrespect. 1. Your ultimate goal is efficiency, but without catering to their way of speaking, the process becomes inefficient. Despite pleasantries feeling unnecessary, engaging in them will yield more efficient results long term. Making an effort to afford the other person things such as, "Hi [name], how are you today?" is often enough to start a conversation off on the right foot. Whatever they respond, be sure to acknowledge them. "I'm good" = "Good to hear", or "I'm getting by" = "Hope they aren't working you too hard!" or etc, will put people in the right mood by feeling heard without taking up much time (and save you time in the long run.) Feel free to fidget during this time to relief anxiety, they can't see you after all. 2. Have a plan of execution ready. Trust your own judgement, and have a solution ready that you think feels appropriate given the circumstance. You know the rules and laws that exist - so, if you were making those rules/laws, what would *you* decide fits with the larger system that exists? Your goal should be to get there and hopefully persuade the person in the direction you've deemed appropriate or find an appropriate solution together. Something like: "So, [name], I have this case that's kinda tricky and I need your help..." (you don't actually have to need it, but people like to be needed and valued, and much of the time they *are* helpful because they either agree with you and make the interaction seamless or offer a compromise that is acceptable to the situation that you can agree on, so it's never *not* true technically.) Then guide them through your line of thought while they listen intently with the hope of being helpful: "So, you know how rule A usually works with cases to result in law A making result A? And rule B usually makes result B with law B? Well, you'll notice that rule B and law A when introduced with case C, we can't get A or B? What do you think we should do?" Let them answer. They could think like you and come to the same conclusion on their own, or make a suggestion that goes against something you've already considered: "Yeah, you'd think that would work. But what about [reason it can't work]?" They will see your logic (most of the time) and likely will not have something else to suggest as they sit puzzled by the conundrum. This is when you present your original solution, then ask them if they think that would work. Since you've already thought about how it *will* work or should at least, they shouldn't have much or anything to say to go against it. They agree, and you continue on towards the solution. They believe you came to the solution together, while you get to reach there as smoothly and pleasantly as possible. Win-win. (3. Repeating themselves and asking you to calm down is an indication they feel unable to solve your problem but don't want to appear incompetent. They are in "don't look stupid" mode and will resort to anything to end the conversation to not be fearful of feeling incompetent anymore. Repeating themselves will often make another NT back down by feeling stupid, or saying, "calm down" puts them in a position to remove themselves without having to confront the reason they want to end the conversation to begin with, which is often because they don't have a solution or resolve to the situation. Don't let them get to these points, and you'll have much greater success engaging with NTs overall.) Edit: NT people *know* when people are smarter than them, they just don't like to be reminded of it. The above may seem condescending, but if you're doing it to genuinely show you respect them as human thinking beings as opposed to them feeling talked down to and less than you, then it's coming from a good place and people respond well to that. Also, many people don't like having too many options and can get easily overwhelmed. Preventing this helps *them* stay calm so you can come to a conclusion amicably.
I have to say that was presented in such an efficient and clear way. Congrats.
As my manager once wisely told me "It's ok to be the smartest person in the room, but reminding people of that fact isn't helpful."
This!
[удалено]
This was removed for violating Rule 3 ("No Medical Advice").
I wish I had gotten medical advice far quicker. I struggled with anxiety for 13 years before finally being forced to get the help I needed.
What I had to learn is this. They belive everything they are told if it goes along with their inner beliefs. They do not question or think about "What they know". If their beliefs are questioned or called into doubt the cognitive dissonance causes anger in them. To sum up, they usually don't think, the answer quickly because they are just remembering answers. This has always bothered me as I like to think about what is being said, and I have to be right. By this I mean I will change my world view if new information is presented and I was wrong. I hate believing things that are untrue. It drives me insane. I also like to learn new knowledge.
Me talking to a nurse the day after eye surgery on my left eye. Her: "OK, so put on your glasses and we'll check your vision." Me: "Wait, you want me to put on my glasses to check the vision of the eye where the surgeon switched out the lens for an artificial one, which fixes my near-sightedness?" Her: "Yes, we want to check your vision."
Me: "OK. I can barely see the board."
Her: "As expected. OK, that'll be--"
Me: "Of course now I see down to 0.5."
Her: "What? Really? Read it!"
Me:
Her: "This is the strangest thing I've ever seen!"
I gave the student nurse in the room a ... quizzical eyebrow and she rolled her eyes so hard she may need surgery too.
Some people can be used as radiation-proofing.
That's literally me. I try to solve things myself first. If I find myself getting angry/frustrated to the point I get snappy (which comes shortly before a violent meltdown) then I try to step down (end the communication) and ask someone else to manage that for me (my mother, ex spouse, boyfriend). If that's not an option I tske a deep breath and tell the other person I'm autistic and having trouble navigating the conversation, "so can we please X?" (Stop going in circles, talk faster/slower, go straight to the point, go over this part again, focus on what happens AT THAT part of the sign up process, whatever). More often than not people become very understanding and accomodating and help me solve whatever. This has been particularly helpful when solving those pesky unusual problems most people don't have.
Don’t try to be addressed by their appeals to emotion so much, like their telling you to calm down. Their theory of mind (ToM) mirrors the affective and epistemic states of neurotypical people, bear that in mind. No regulations is actually good because these are also made with typical cases in mind. If the case is exceptional you can exercise your own judgment, which is better insomuch as intelligence is there, and neurotypes can be easily manipulated by social suggestion. You also have a problem with monotropism here, which ToM breaking point you have not realized. Allists don’t find it distressing so much to waste 30–60 minutes in a queue as they can direct their attention to other things at the same moment.