Asperger's and gender: who adapts?

I mentioned that I've recently read:
Both books are about people with Asperger's and how they relate to their partners, but their respective messages are strikingly different.

In 22 Things, Rudy Simone is saying (my summary): "We are women with Asperger's. We have sensory issues, social issues, anxiety, and we're prone to meltdowns. Here's how you can support us and compensate for our shortcomings. Our condition is to be embraced, not challenged. If you don't accept us unconditionally, we will burn bridges with you, and never look back."

In The Journal of Best Practices, David Finch is saying (my summary): "I'm married to the most amazing neurotypical woman ever. When I was diagnosed with Asperger's, it explained why our relationship had deteriorated so badly. In the two years that followed, I've done all the things I describe in this book to improve myself as a father and husband. It remains a permanent challenge, but I've learned to cope with my condition, and have become a better partner in the process."

In 22 Things, Rudy Simone takes it for granted that the aspergirl's partner will adapt. But in The Journal of Best Practices, it is the man with Asperger's who takes on the entire burden of coping with his condition, so that he could be worthy of his amazing neurotypical partner, who is perfect as-is.

Hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm.

Imagine how a book like David Finch's would come across if it was instead written by a woman with Asperger's who keeps talking about how amazing her neurotypical husband is, and how she's been bending over backwards for the past two years, obsessively trying to cope with her condition, so that she could fill the stereotypical role of being a good wife and a good mother for their children. And now she can finally kinda do it, yay!

Now imagine how a book like Rudy Simone's would come across if it was instead written by a man with Asperger's who argues matter-of-factly that the traits of "asperguys" are different - as opposed to bad - and should be accepted at face value. He provides useful tips on how a woman who wants to be with an asperguy can support him and compensate for his shortcomings. His aspergerness is to be cherished and embraced. If a woman doesn't, she can fully expect him to burn bridges with her, and never look back.

Sadly, both books exaggerate in a way that's eerily consistent with the gender biases of our era.

A proper balance is of course in the middle. An aspergirl ought to work on her coping strategies, and can achieve significant improvement, just like David Finch in Best Practices. But she does need to be supported and understood. On the other hand, a guy with Asperger's should not assume that he's worth less, and that the entire burden of adapting ought to be on him. He does need to adapt, but he also needs support and understanding.


My Aspergian traits, and my mom's suspected autism

As I was finishing my last post, a realization flashed across my mind: that my mom lacks empathy in an autistic way, rather than a narcissistic way; and that I too have inherited some of this trait.

My mom has always been weird and, well, embarrassing. The last time I remember having a close relationship with her is when I was age 4-6, sitting in her lap, eating strawberries with sugar. (Yummy.) But the more I developed the ability to express myself, the more the gulf between us deepened. In my entire life, I do not remember a single instance of talking to her, and successfully finding refuge in her understanding. It's not that my mom lacks the desire to help other people; this is even, perhaps, her foremost drive. But she completely lacks the ability to understand what people are thinking and feeling. As in the root of the word autism, "autos" - Greek for self - she is completely walled off within herself, as if separated from everything by a glass wall, and she's constantly misinterpreting others. Combined with her incessant desire to help, the result is, more often than not, a painful and embarrassing train wreck. What makes this even more frustrating is that she doesn't even seem to be aware it's a train wreck.

One would think that some kind of trauma must have made her this way, but according to my older relatives, she was like this even in her younger years, from when she first met my dad as a teenager. More than a decade ago, I remember a conversation with my grandmother - her mother - where she said: "Anica has always been different. I have no idea why. We raised her just like her brothers. Where did we go wrong? I don't know."

None of us in our family has ever been able to figure out my mom's problem. Most people have tried to help, but the cause has always been a mystery, and of course, she won't see a doctor; according to her, it's the world that's weird, and she's the only normal person.

For me, the problem has been too difficult to think about. Being her only child, I am the eternal target of her good intentions. The way she tries to help, she presses all my triggers, and in the past, especially while growing up, this put me in a permanent state of meltdown. I've come to realize that, in order to preserve my mental well-being, I have to keep contact with her to a minimum.

Then, in the past year, I fell deeply in love with someone. In due course - long after I've followed in my mom's footsteps, and done everything I possibly could to alienate this person, all under the banner of love and caring - I finally figured out a plausible explanation for the misunderstandings I experienced with this person. Before that, if you followed this blog in October, you would have noticed an angry post where I armchair-diagnosed her with narcissism. I have deleted that post, because I've come to realize it was not only incorrect, and explained only a portion of her symptoms, but was incredibly unfair. If I could have made it so it was never written, I would have. As it is, I could only delete. I'm sorry, Mey. I'm profoundly sorry.

But the mystery haunted me. Why did she act the way she did? When I did X, or I said Y, why was I so completely unable to predict her reaction? When I did this enough times, why did she cut me off the way she did? I know she's not cold-hearted, so why is she behaving as though she is? Why have I been unable to reach her?

This remained a mystery until I was reading something random on reddit, and things finally clicked: she might be on the autistic spectrum. I contemplated this for a few months, until I found a book that made everything clear as day: Rudy Simone's Aspergirls. I'd like to avoid another incorrect armchair diagnosis, but this is a wonderful book, and everything I read in this book describes Mey. Including, and especially, the misunderstandings in the absence of knowing, and the consequent burning of bridges.

Since then, I've read 22 Things a Woman With Asperger's Syndrome Wants Her Partner to Know, also by Rudy Simone; then Mozart and the Whale, the amazing life story and love story of two people with Asperger's syndrome; and I'm currently reading David Finch's The Journal of Best Practices: A Memoir of Marriage, Asperger Syndrome, and One Man's Quest to Be a Better Husband. Another book - The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome - is still waiting for me on my Kindle.

All of this reading has been compelling and exceptionally interesting, and has led me to question how many of these traits I also have; and lately, did I get these traits from my mother...?

In my years of arguing with people on the internet, I have not evaded an occasional accusation that I have Asperger's without knowing. Even during my contact with Mey, at one point, she exclaimed that if she didn't know better, she'd swear I have Asperger's. (I find that cute and funny now, because she probably has it more than me, tee hee. And I love her no less for it.)

I've always rejected these insinuations, because a key Aspergian trait is lack of empathy, and I always thought of myself as having no problems in that area. If I understand how another person feels, I inevitably feel with them, I thought. More so than other people.

I realize now - after writing my previous post - that I need to put an emphasis on if. I do in fact have many traits that are rather Aspergian. A sample:
  • Social blindness. While I certainly don't lack compassion when I understand what a person feels, I have on many occasions noticed that the way I read people has been completely wrong. This mis-perception has caused me to act in ways that embarrassed Jana, whose ability to read people is much better developed.
  • Social awkwardness. Growing up, I was exceptionally awkward in groups, and would hide to avoid them. These days, I consider myself more socially adept; I've always liked talking to interesting people, but group settings are still not the type of interaction I would seek out on my own, or where I feel naturally comfortable.
  • Triggers and meltdowns. Uncontrollable outbursts of anger, apparently for no reason, were my prominent and embarrassing feature when Jana and I first met a decade ago. This has improved over time, and I would like to think this is partly because I've improved, but to a large extent it's because Jana has learned to avoid my triggers.
  • Social hyper-sensitivity. I can be - uncomfortably - part of a group for a while, but over time, repeated unpleasant interactions are likely to trigger a meltdown in a way that will leave Jana embarrassed, and the other group members to think: "WTF just happened?"
  • Need for control. I cannot imagine myself working in an environment where I'm not my own boss. If I'm a member of a group where I'm not in charge, I will feel constant anxiety and pressure which I won't be able to tolerate in the long run. Give me an eventual stressful event, and there will be a meltdown.
  • Debilitating perfectionism. When doing something, it's more important to me that the steps are done impeccably right, than that the goal is reached in a reasonable time. I've chosen a career in security software, where this trait is necessary and treasured. But it also means that I find simple tasks, such as cleaning or cooking, uncomfortably challenging. They are not my passion, so I'm loathe to invest the time to do them right. Because I don't know how to do them right, I find doing them at all physically uncomfortable.

    When I was younger, I used to be like this with regard to eating, and nearly drove myself to diabetes by subsisting on a once-daily restaurant meal, and chocolate bars. Fortunately, I adopted healthy eating as an interest before my time ran out. Now that I did, of course, I eat perfectly - or at least what I think that is - and I find it really uncomfortable to deviate.

    Whether it's a blog post or an anonymous comment - when I post, I never just post. I write and post, but then re-read, edit, re-read, edit, re-read, and edit until I can no longer find a way to improve the post. I am significantly frustrated by systems which don't allow me to edit.
  • I hoard. I've learned to let go of material things - old magazines, old clothes, as long as Jana tosses them without my knowledge. But since disk space is ever growing, my digital stash contains most everything I've ever stored, going back decades. Even though I never touch the stuff, I find this important. One day I'll want to look back at the emails I wrote in 2003, and then I will find them valuable! Or what if I become transhuman, and transform into a completely different entity, and want to remember how I started way back when, thousands of years ago? Then I'll cherish the history I saved. Fortunately, disk space does keep ever growing.
  • I'm resistant to change. New versions of Windows and Visual Studio come way too often for my taste; even if I do try them, I have to force myself. After my first smart phone - an HTC Desire - crapped out after six months in 2010, I stuck to an old Nokia until August 2013, when I was finally cajoled into buying smartphones by Jana and a friend.

    I've traveled a fair portion of the world, but I prefer to stick to developed places where I know what I can expect. My favorite place to travel is the US. All the homogenization that people complain about - the same Walmarts, same fast food outlets, same hotel chains at every step - all of this, I find reassuring, because I know what to expect. My friends enjoy going to places such as India, Whateverstan, or Yemen - I enjoy some of the pictures, but there are crazy people there. I would still be afraid to go there when I'm dead.
A common misperception of autism - one I had myself before this year - is that it necessarily only applies to people who are completely locked in their own world, who can't possibly communicate, who still wear diapers at age twenty. This is not at all the case. I've come to realize that people with Asperger's, even with autism, tend to express themselves really well - especially in written form, so well you would never guess they're on the spectrum, until you're very well acquainted with them.

There's a reason it's called the autistic spectrum. We know that it is genetic. More so than being a disease, it's a spectrum of genes which, yes, in their worst combinations, create debilitating disability. But many more people have combinations of these genes which may cause lesser personality issues, and may also bring gifts with them - such as exceptional math skills, engineering ability, or musical and artistic talent.

Besides the inability to perceive, and properly react to, other people's feelings, unexplained permanent anxiety is a signature characteristic of my mom. It also happens to be a signature characteristic of Asperger's. My mom will likely never seek a formal diagnosis. Neither will I; I would probably be considered too highly functional for anyone to give me one. But my Asperger-like traits have had a significant influence on my life; they've influenced my friends, my career, the struggles experienced by my partners. More than anything before, this helps me understand them.

And, perhaps, it even helps me understand my mom.

Shortcomings of the words empathy, sympathy, and compassion

During the past several months, I've had ample opportunity to think about the way a narcissist lacks empathy, contrasted by how an autistic lacks empathy. The two are distinctly different, but it's challenging to define the difference in terms of "empathy", "sympathy", and "compassion". The words seem somehow inappropriate and unfit for the task. Rudy Simone, author of Aspergirls, straight out says she's looked into these words, and can't come up with a meaningful difference.

But there is a difference in how a narcissist lacks empathy, and how an autistic lacks empathy. A narcissist may very well be aware of how another person feels, but doesn't care. The knowledge might move them to exploit it for their benefit, but knowing about another person's pain doesn't move them to alleviate it. They don't feel compassion. A sadistic person, more so, is very much able to perceive another person's pain - and finds this an enjoyable experience.

On the other hand, an autistic person does care, as long as another person's feelings are somehow brought to their awareness. They do feel compassion, and are moved to alleviate the other person's pain. However, they tend to have trouble detecting and interpreting another person's feelings in the first place. (And if they do, they might find it overwhelming.)

I think this difference is important, and it should be possible to capture it concisely in the words we use. We ought to have a word which describes only being able to perceive how a person feels, and then a separate word to describe feeling with a person: i.e., being compelled to alleviate another person's pain, once you know about it; or being happy knowing that another person is happy.

We do have words for this latter concept - they are compassion and compersion, respectively. But we don't have a word that captures only the ability to perceive how another person feels, without implying how the perceiver feels about it. The words "empathy" and "sympathy" both go beyond the act of perceiving, and encompass "feeling with". This makes these words clumsy and inappropriate, because they neither accurately describe the narcissist (who perceives, but does not feel with), nor the sadist (who perceives, but feels the opposite), nor the autistic (who feels with another person, but has difficulty perceiving).

This difference is important, and ought to be understood. It is unfortunate that we lack good words for it.

As I finish this post, a realization flashes across my mind: that my mom lacks empathy in an autistic way, rather than a narcissistic way; and that I too have inherited some of this trait. This motivates me to write my next post.


Wealth creation, and the rich vs. the poor

I frequently witness what seems to be typical conversations between a socialist and a libertarian.

The socialist might say: "67 people own more than the world's poorest 3.5 billion!" The implication being that the wealthy people are stealing from the poor.

The libertarian might say: "And that's okay, as long as wealth is created, not stolen!" The implication being that for the most part, the poor need to create their own wealth.

The libertarian is partly right. Wealth is created.

The problem is that the process of wealth creation will be increasingly out of reach for the average person, and is already out of reach for most people on the bottom of the ability curve. The way we're headed, we're going to end up with a population that's not able to contribute significantly to the wealth creation process, and without a social safety net, they end up being destitute.

However, this same population will still have voting rights. And guns.

Something does not compute. ;)

Now, the harsh way to react to this would be to say "Tough luck! Sucks to be you who can't contribute, I still can!" and let people live in poverty while hoping they don't use their votes to confiscate your property, or their guns to rob your ass.

But an enlightened way to react to this is to realize that automation will only increase in scope, not shrink, and that our own ability to make useful contributions may dwindle or disappear if someone invents a sufficiently advanced AI. It would behoove us to recognize that we may all end up being economically irrelevant, and therefore not extend harsh treatment to those who are simply becoming economically irrelevant sooner.


Teenage boys and "statutory rape"

The following issue miffs me incredibly: people's righteous insistence that an adult female having consensual sex with an underage boy is problematic to the same degree, and for the same reasons, as an adult male having sex with an underage girl.

In most countries, the law doesn't distinguish between the two cases, probably to avoid criticism of gender bias. But the risks from sex for men and women are radically different. In the worst case for an underage boy, he might possibly get herpes - something most people will get in their lifetimes, and something that has no symptoms for 2/3 of carriers. Anything else that isn't curable is highly unlikely. He might father a child, but there is no risk to him whether the woman decides to carry it, or have an abortion. The boy should not be held responsible for the life he helped create, because he is underage; the woman should not be able to make him see the child if he doesn't want to, or extract alimony.

But there's no reason at all for our society to imprison an adult woman who had consensual sex with a boy. If he wanted it in the moment; if she did not drug him, or coerce him - then there was no risk to him at all, beyond the risks that also come from kissing. He would be legally able to consent to kissing; there's no reason to deny him the ability to consent to intercourse.

Full disclosure: my first time having sex was when I was 15, with a fragile 19 year old girl, who for personal reasons needed to have this experience with someone from whom she didn't feel threatened. It was pretty much great for both of us. It was legal where it happened, but I still had to protect her identity from the rabid rage of my mother, who has never had a sense for what's appropriate, or where boundaries are. She believed I was being "exploited", and wanted to confront this girl and her parents and create an enormous amount of drama that would be completely destructive and harmful to everyone.

There are no real risks in consensual sex for a 15 year old boy, or even a 14 year old boy, if he wants it. Men and women differ in that women have a uterus. When it comes to statutory rape, there should be a double standard; there must be a double standard, because the risks for boys and girls are very different.


Passing judgment

Someone asked the following question:
Should we judge the actions of people in other cultures (present and past) by their ethical standards or our own? If we judge by their standards, what must we think of people who follow our mores but break those of their own society?
What does it mean to "judge"? We cannot impose punishment on, or give reward to, people who are already dead, or who live in a country over which we have no influence. When it comes to the latter, we can only possibly go to war with them. Judgment tends to be used to facilitate such war.

Having private thoughts of approval or disapproval has no consequence unless it influences actions of the person having such thoughts. Publicly voicing approval or disapproval only has consequence if it influences currently living people's actions.

When viewed this way, judgment of people in past times, and contemporary cultures beyond our reach, is necessarily masturbatory. When we "judge" them, we do it in the same way we might judge fantasy characters. We do it to influence the thoughts and actions of the people we can reach - that is ourselves, and people sharing our space and time.

When it comes to judging people, experience shows that we will judge them hypocritically. Humanity tends to use ethics as a smokescreen behind which to hide our personal interest. The ethics standards to which we hold other people tend to be discarded when it comes to ourselves.

I think we should be very careful about whom we judge, and why. Judgment in general tends to be hypocritical and destructive. We should rather attempt to influence the world in a way we think is for the best, but we should be open to the possibility that we're wrong, even in that case.

I think the answer to this question is: why judge in the first place?


The US, Ukraine, and Russia


If an armed conflict arises between Ukraine and Russia, the US isn't going to strike militarily against Russian forces. This is partly because it wouldn't benefit the US to risk World War III, but also because there's nothing in it for Israel.


Indian communication culture

Nowadays, people tend to get offended if you say anything implying that a group of people who share a superficial trait - such as color, or nationality - tend to have a deeper trait in common. True or not, making observations like that is considered racist, sexist, insensitive, and generally bad.

Well, screw that. I'm not going to nod in agreement to the senseless claim that everyone is equal. There are differences, and they're significant.

I'm noticing some consistent features in my interactions with people from India over the years. I find that these various features reside on a spectrum from annoying to funny:
  • Use of revert instead of "reply". They will always ask to "revert as soon as possible".
  • Use of the needful instead of "what's necessary" (or not saying it at all). One very common phrase is "please do the needful".
  • When they're expecting something from you - such as a service - they tend to communicate in a tone that is entitled, talks down to you, and is disrespectful.
  • When communicating about anything by email, there seems to be a trend to include at least 10 people on an exchange that is completely trivial. None of these other people ever participate in the communication. Still, the person you are talking to CCs seemingly everyone on their team. Is it to show that work is being done? Or is the intent to pressure you with all these other people present in the conversation?
All in all, these features make communicating with Indian people particularly grating. If I worked for a big corporation, I'd be expected to grit my teeth and not talk about that. I do grit my teeth in the actual interaction, but fortunately... I have the freedom to talk about that. :-)



I take back everything I ever said about people with autism, or how we should treat them.

I'll explain... when I understand better. For now, I just take it back. And I'm sorry.

(To those who might worry this post could be related to something new about Aaron - don't worry. I hope I don't jinx it somehow, but this isn't about him.)


Why teachers should be paid more

Currently, in the US, but also many other countries, teachers are paid 30% - 50% less than people in engineering professions. I argue that, as a consequence of this, teachers are mostly mediocre people who are not very good at the job; and those who are good at it, tend to be self-sacrificial. Then there are people who argue that this is fine, that teaching is a reward in and of itself. They argue that teachers ought to be motivated by aspects of the job other than money.

For many people, including myself, money is not just about money, it's about status. Most people care about status. I don't necessarily care about being able to buy things I don't need, but I care about being perceived at approximately the rung of the totem pole where I see myself belonging. It makes me deeply uncomfortable to feel like I'm being valued less than I think I should be valued on a chronic basis. I believe that's true for most people.

Now, there are some people who are able to maintain a perception of being valued even if they aren't being paid much. I am not. I need society to show it values me through a real and meaningful gesture (e.g. granting me access to resources), not merely by paying lip service, and then denying me resources. That's why, in the current atmosphere, I can't be a teacher, even though I'd otherwise like to teach.

One might think that people who need to be paid well in order to perceive that they're being valued might be people we don't need teaching children. One would be wrong. I want people like me teaching my kids. I do not want only self-sacrificing people teaching my kids, because I don't want my children to be exposed to only those values.

Given what we're paying teachers, the only kind of decent teacher we can have is the self-sacrificing kind. I find this gives children a lopsided idea of the value spectrum actually available to them, and gives them no exposure to strong, capable and virtuous people who aren't self-sacrificial. I find that limiting and harmful. At the very least, it means a large proportion of children who aren't that way are growing up without teachers they can relate to.


Aaron's family #4

My dad has been reminding me that there haven't been new photos since last year, so... here they are. :-)

Sorted newest first, mostly: