this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2026
842 points (98.8% liked)
People Twitter
10346 readers
1281 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. If you replace the "x" at their site with xcancel (so it beomes xcancel.com), and you're not on mobile, it will save video. https://web.archive.org/save is another great option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I appreciate you.
We should all "treat others the same as we want to be treated ourselves" and I got the impression that the way I had done it got on your nerves, same as some things a bit "out of place" get on mine.
There's a great comedian complaining she didn't initially get her autism diagnosis because when the psychologist asked her, "Do the tags on the back of your shirt bother you?" she answered simply, "No." When she found out that not having sensory issues was what denied her the diagnosis, she snapped, "Of course the tags don't bother me--I have a system!"
I'm coming to grips with the fact that I have a lot--but not all--of the traits of autism. I realize that as an adult, I probably have at least a few more than I'm immediately aware because I've been subconsciously avoiding situations that trigger my autism, so this week, this week I'm letting my freak flag fly to see what's beneath the mask.
Well, I did attend a psychotherapist for some years and when I said that some of my friends thought I had Autism, she said I did NOT have Autism.
Further, I don't have most of the traits of ADHD, though for example I bore easily unless I constantly have something to occupy myself with.
A couple of years ago I saw this diagram
My traits pretty much match all the entries in the Giftedness circle. My IQ also makes more likely I'm in there (though very high IQ it's not a requirement).
It would explain having some traits found in people with Autism and some traits found in people with ADHD whilst not actually having enough to be diagnosed as either.
I've came to terms with being "quirky" in how I think and like things more than a decade ago (well before I found "Giftedness" exists as kind of uncommon way of mentally operating, though I was deemed "gifted" as a child in terms of mental capacity rather than an explanation for my behavioral traits) and don't real think it's a bad thing: it is as it is and I'm not going to try and change myself to be more like the average person (especially since I feel the average human being is less than impressive).
I mention this because maybe your situation is the same or similar.
Yes, it's similar, except that I'm not particularly intelligent, except maybe when it comes to language.
My big deficit is social skills, but mostly because I find people incredibly boring and I don't have any interest in playing the social games that make people comfortable; however, I don't run the board on social autistic traits, because I can read faces and predict how people will respond pretty easily. I don't "mask" exactly, so much as "turn it on and off." That is to say, I can naturally follow a normal conversation and social interaction the normal way, more or less, and I can do so naturally, without having to follow abstract rules I learned from a reddit post, but it is exhausting. That said one trait I can't turn off is my need to be honest.
My work history has really suffered. And it pisses me off a bit that I can't get any benefits or accomodations for it without a dx. The reason autistic people suffer unemployment and underemployment is exactly the social issues I share with them, and I don´t know how the tag on the back of my shirt not bothering me makes me less deserving of accomodations when it is not the bother of a tag on the back of my shirt that's making work difficult.
I guess the problem for society is if we treated everyone to make them comfortable, that would mean that
???
I fucking hate it here.
But the one thing I have learned is to say "fuck off" to the mental health system, because I could get a stack of OTHER diagnsoses at the drop of a hat. But the core of the problem, I realize, has less to do with me, and more to do with not fitting in. I mean, that is a problem FOR me, but I am not the problem.
Also: I keep seeing AuDHD bandied about--which I assume is a portmanteau of Autism and ADHD. Have you looked into that?
Overall, I find the whole diagnostic system kind of flawed--or, if not flawed, then of limited utility.... but my thoughts on that here:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/62865308
IMHO ultimately the problem is down to the natural human need to put things in labelled boxes ("Autism", "ADHD") to simplify a complex world into a simpler enough representation that it fits most people's mental capabilities and they can understand it - something which ends up causing problems for everybody significantly away from the norm in anything which is a range or a spectrum (for example, I suspect the problems around sexual orientation and transsexualism derive from this) - and people's emotional need to feel comfortable which is challenged when they interact with people who don't look like or behave within a certain common range of appearance or behavior people are familiar with - something which gets solved with familiarity, but that does mean that the more uncommon somebody's pattern of behavior is or the more people like that tend to refrain from social contact, the less people in general out there will be familiar and thus comfortable with it.
A large part of the problem with these is that they're emotional and/or subconscious, so to overcome such human tendencies in oneself one needs to be at least somewhat intelligent, know about this kind of thing, actually have enough empathy to want to do it for the other person on the other side AND have enough self-awareness to spot in themselves such tendency, a combination of character traits which is at best uncommon.
I think the problem people have with autism goes beyond mere familiarity. Society is built around pleasing people, and those who refuse to people please (or even those who do it less) are at a competitive disadvantage.
My last job had no discernible metrics and it seemed that advancement was entirely based on your ability to have superiors like you.
Job interviews are similarly exercises in subtly making people comfortable around you, as well as creative deception.
In my own experience living in multiple countries the people pleasing performative crap and expectations that that's what people will do are cultural rather than generally human, and in fact I know multiple environments were people doing a lot of that is looked down upon whilst in others it's pretty much a requirement to behave like that.
Even in corporate America there are actually highly respected people who are not at all people pleasers, some even known for being highly abrasive. Granted people just starting their career which are not the recipients if nepotism from somebody highly placed in a company seldom get away with being abrasive unless they're some kind of way out there domain genius and often not even then.
PS: That said, in situations like job interviews first impressions do count a lot because it's a situation where a candidate is a random unknown and there's not enough time to judge one's character. In that case it helps if one brings in some kind of proof of high capabilities to offset the negative first impression due to an unusual personality (for example, for a software developers that would be open source projects that stand out for their utility, bleeding edge and/or complexity). It's unfair, yet it's easier to compensate for it that to wait for the whole world to change.
It's hard to know if it's cultural or subcultural; for instance, when I worked in tech, I had a blast, socially-speaking, in retrospect I realize it was probably because technical types tend towards neurodiversity.
I have heard theories that the most important thing to do to advance your career is manage your reputation--but, significantly, only with people above you. Superiors don't care what your peers think of you, but if you assiduously kiss up, you kick down all you want.
I'm not sure why you're offering advice against "waiting for the world to change." I am kind of in a bad place career wise and I have a spotty work history and no accomplishments to point to, and in my field is notoriously difficult to demonstrate competency (and it is concomitantly exceedingly rare). My main "selling point"--is that I was able to make personal improvements in my life without any real help from anyone in my field, which is amazing to me, but highly threatening to the system. I'm not waiting for the world to change, just struggling to figure out my next move.
Well, that's the thing, in certain cultures (for example, the Dutch) kissing up is highly frowned up up, even by one's hierarchical superiors.
Even in the culture I grew up in - Portuguese - it's a bit of a crap shoot in that it can help you but it can also hinder you.
In comparison, in England that or at least meekness, was almost expected from the underlings of bosses from posh backgrounds.
It is frowned upon, but does that just mean the social rules are doing it are more complicated? The way bribing people is looked down upon, so there are a lot of subtle signals to indicate a favor will be repaid.
In The Netherlands it means it's a great way to NOT get promoted because managers don't like it and especially when other people see it being done they will be weary of promoting that person as it will look like the manager is promoting somebody for butt-kissing. This kinda links to how expectations on managers in The Netherlands are quite different from those in Anglo-Saxon countries: for example, people working long hours there reflects badly on the manager because it's seen as the manager being incompetent at planning and/or resourcing hence the work is late, whilst in Britain people working long hours is see as "hard work", considered a good thing and manager whose people do that are seen as good as making their people work hard, so the very opposite of The Netherlands.
In Portugal it kinda depends on the manager (some like it, some dislike it) whilst there one's colleagues will almost certainly start badmouthing to others the person doing it and might even passively (by not helping them) or even actively start undermining the work of the person doing it.
Interesting, but does it get to the point where someone can just be good at their job and be valued and promoted, or do they still have to be sociable? I'm guessing the Borg are the only people that do this, and they are a fictional race.
If you're good at your job, you don't need to be sociable. You usually do need to be capable of working with others - which means interact with them - as work done in teams is the most common situation and hence team-working skills are seen as valuable and will help you progress in your career.
That said, I've worked in a couple of places were some of my colleagues didn't at all socialize with the rest and spent most of their time "in their little corner doing their thing" and only interacting with the rest for work purposes.
Again, the work culture in The Netherlands helps with this - unlike in other countries were for example there are expectations of going out for drinks with work colleagues after work hours (in Portugal sometimes, in Britain more frequently so, apparently in Japan even more so), in The Netherlands the way of thinking is that "Work is work, personal life is personal life and they're separate things", so work colleagues are just that and friends are different people not from work: there are no expectations there that you befriend work colleagues and/or socialize with them.
Beyond that, it's my impression that it's easier to be the kind of person that doesn't care to socialize in domains were high levels of expertise are required and with niches were the work can be done individuals (such as some areas in IT and in Science).
That said, outside ultra-niche ultra-expert, one's career growth will eventually take a person to a point beyond which socializing skills are required to progress (mainly because, as I hinted at earlier, the biggest and most important stuff tends to require teams and teamwork, hence being able to deal with people opens the door to the bigger leagues in most areas), though that can be quite far into the career progression track and at a level that most people don't reach.