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.
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.
Cue(s) not queue(s). One is a hint or indicator, and the other is an organized line. A social cue. Solid points as well.
Haha I mean a line of people might help the situation but I dunno! Thanks for the correction
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.
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
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
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Actually I’m fairly popular, but that just leads to me catching a lot of attention from strangers who’s first interaction with me, not knowing I’m autistic, is seeing somebody rude and dismissive.
If I could just explain to everybody immediately “hey, I’m autistic, I’m not being rude on purpose,” that’d be great. But most of my interactions with people are short messages like “What outfit are you wearing on your character” or a quick invitation to join them for something. Not a lot of opportunities to explain to them why I act the way I do.
When I do get the opportunity is usually when I end up making real friends, because they don’t see me as the dismissive girl who doesn’t want to talk to them anymore, but instead the autistic girl who just interacts a little differently.
Hell, some people keep trying over and over again to be my friend even when they think I am being rude and dismissive, they just don’t make any progress because they’ve misread my mood and assume I want them to go away.That seems like a big reaching conclusion based on very little data.
Friendship goes both ways and requires equal effort from both parties to make it work. Being rigid and unadapatable is a great way to whittle away your friends unnecessarily.
If people are affected by the simple reply of “K” by OP, something more fundamental is wrong with the relationship than adaptability.
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.
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 have pretty much the same comment as anyone else here (punctuation is fine, “K” is less fine) so I won’t repeat it but it reminds me of this sketch. People can’t read your inflection over texts…especially when it’s a one letter answer.
Imagine a parent saying “clean your room” and a passive aggressive teenager saying “K.” - that’s how it can be interpreted in some contexts.
K
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.
ꓘ
Found the Australian
deleted by creator
That makes a lot of sense. I think I do notice patterns a lot, I just don’t see the reason the pattern exists, so I can’t determine if it’s a rude pattern or a polite pattern. That’s kinda what happened with “K.” I saw people use it everywhere and went “Ah, I see, so this is how people talk now. I should do it too.”
deleted by creator
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 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.
