8 ms·

> a lot of the points felt more like learning how to charm, manipulate, and game social interactions. A lot of stuff "normal" people do is charm, manipulate, a

by etangent 10mo ago

> a lot of the points felt more like learning how to charm, manipulate, and game social interactions. A lot of stuff "normal" people do is charm, manipulate, and game social interactions. Except because they are not conscious about it, we give them a pass. One of the characteristics of autistic-spectrum individuals is that they must make a conscious effort to achieve goals that are achieved unconsciously by most of us. If we prevent such individuals from learning all that rarely-written-down stuff consciously because it seems "distasteful" to us, then we are disadvantaging such individuals socially.

pseidemann 10mo ago
Agreed. It's the playbook of social interaction written out. Nothing offensive about that.
- collingreen 10mo ago
  Sometimes we find it distasteful to have things we're fully aware of explicitly spelled out. A trite quip here is "nobody wants to see how the sausage is made".
  - jamilton 10mo ago
    Yeah. I wonder why that is - is it because it highlights a conflict between our actions and values? If left unexamined, it's a non-issue, so having it spelled out feels like a problem being created?
    - switchbak 10mo ago
      I would much rather assume the people I'm interacting with are honest and conveying their real feelings, vs playing some (probably) Machiavellian game with N levels of dishonesty and manipulation from what could easily be a malevolent person at the core. At least that tends to be the assumption when you pick up on a lack of authenticity in this way. When you have a real indication of dealing with a master manipulator, it's very understandable that you should use an abundance of caution. That's probably an instinct in us at this level. Of course everyone is at least a little aware that they're putting on a bit of a ruse with their public persona, but that needs to be tethered to some level of authenticity or you'll just be sending out Patrick Bateman vibes.
      - throwaway2037 10mo ago
        > When you have a real indication of dealing with a master manipulator This statement seems like a paradox. Forgive my "No True Scotsman" example. If the person is such a "master manipulator" what indications do you have? The social normies will miss them, or will think they are the ones making the suggestions/decisions. This is the hallmark of master craft sales people.
      - avhception 10mo ago
        This strikes me as a glass-half-empty interpretation. Why is the stuff from the blog post necessarily machiavellian and manipulative? I didn't read any of that into that blog post. Rather, it was about how to create win-win situations where the people involved genuinely enjoy each others company. No need for bad intentions here.
      - mewpmewp2 10mo ago
        Wouldn't you think it is more important what the goal for the other person is? If their goal is to enrich and make both of your lives better, does it matter whether they consicously use social techniques or have natural automatic ability to do so? It is also autism vs psychopathy. Patrick Bateman is nowhere close to someone autistic trying to learn those socially successful behaviours. Patrick Bateman is a terrible human being not because they are inauthentic, he is a terrible human being because of the acts he did and wanted to do.
    - collingreen 10mo ago
      I like your description. I think sometimes this is when we find our way to the middle of two relatively simple drives: "be an orthodox group member/ avoid being a social outcast" and "avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance / admitting hypocrisy". If there aren't immediate consequences for inaction (especially if there ARE costs and/or social consequences for action) were very good at convincing ourselves to ignore it (or tell ourselves we will EVENTUALLY deal with it but just not right now)
  - etangent 10mo ago
    100% correct.
  - guy2345 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tomhow 10mo ago
      Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
      - guy2345 10mo ago
        [dead]
  - ribosometronome 10mo ago
    It may be the first time many people are actively considering these things if they haven't generally felt social struggles / aren't on the spectrum.
  - skeeter2020 10mo ago
    Sometimes doing something explicit that is typically done without thought or plan feels phony and off. This is such a scenario.
    - pixl97 10mo ago
      Embracing the bliss of ignorance.
    - robocat 10mo ago
      That's not what I got from the article. Firstly they seem to be saying that they were not seen as phony (hard to judge). Sure they're using tricks, but they were copying tricks off other people! Not all social interaction is genuinely raw. I thought the article was more about leaning into their own style, becoming more intuitive over time.
- ghurtado 10mo ago
  I would take it further and say that the more light we bring to this subject, the less it becomes the exclusive domain of snake oil salesmen and the "sales tips 101" type books, and the more inoculated the general public becomes to manipulation.
  - overfeed 10mo ago
    Why dontou consider it "manipulation"? Would you consider what goes into you resume, or performance/promotion packet "manipulation"? In every interaction there are spoken and unspoken rules, and those who excel tend to be those who can understand the subtext and express themselves effectively.
    - zozbot234 10mo ago
      It depends, of course. Some people might fill their resume with outright BS, and this would be widely regarded as manipulative.
      - mewpmewp2 10mo ago
        Depends how you define outright BS. I bet most people at least cherrypick the best data points amongst thousands of possible, giving a look that doesn't really represent them as a whole. And then they omit some undesirable things. Similar to how people on social media will only post their best moments, giving inaccurate representation of their lives and themselves while overall causing others to feel like they are missing out, etc. So here is the skill of being able to cherrypick data to give the best representation of yourself as opposed to true average honest overview of oneself. Then the skill of avoiding answering questions you don't want to answer to by answering by talking about what you want to talk about (think politicians). Same is with real life interactions. Among 1000s of things you could say or do there is always some that are more effective than others in reaching a certain goal, whether it is getting a job, making a sale, convincing someone, making a friend or whatever. Is it manipulative only if you make up something or if you are able to get people to do what you want by being able to cherrypick the most convincing ideas, arguments, facts etc.
- gausswho 10mo ago
  A self-help book that took off saying the quiet part out loud is How to Win Friends & Influence People. It predates the 'influencer'.
  - kragen 10mo ago
    https://dn720004.ca.archive.org/0/items/english-collections-1/How%20To%20Win%20Friends%20And%20Influence%20People%20-%20Carnegie%2C%20Dale.pdf https://dn720004.ca.archive.org/0/items/english-collections-...
spicyusername 10mo ago
That's a pretty cynical take on what "normal" people are doing.
- ndr 10mo ago
  It is weird, but part of the skill is to surf exactly on that line that is normal without crossing it. Almost all honest signals are about a similar tradeoff.
zozbot234 10mo ago
A lot of normal people may routinely act charming and game social interactions, but they generally aren't being "manipulative" in the process. "Manipulation" is really just a polite word for routinely lying and BS'ing people on the off-chance that they are going to be fooled and/or not want to call you out on it. If you're reasonably socially skilled, you can usually see it coming a mile away and react accordingly, but what gets you in trouble is the not-so-common case where you actually fall for it, since the consequences can be quite bad. None of this is describing ordinary social interaction, tough; these are really two entirely separate topics, and there's little reason to conflate them.
- ratmeadow 10mo ago
  So for the same set of actions, it's fine if you're unaware of the underlying mechanisms, and manipulation if you are aware? If you dig through the weeds of it you can argue just about everything we do socially is manipulation. We are social because we're social animals and will die without help from other humans (well, particularly thousands of years ago). At the end of the day, we are nice to people to get things from them that we need - food, shelter, knowledge, strength. It's always been like that. But because it makes us feel fuzzy and good, apparently that's not manipulation, that's being nice.
  - zozbot234 10mo ago
    You can absolutely be charming towards people and play the "game" of social interaction while being quite aware that this is what you're doing. The point is that this need not involve outright lying or BS at all and that the latter is what such terms as "manipulation" actually imply in a very practical sense; not that it somehow counts against you if you're aware of what's happening at a pure level of social interaction. (In fact, the opposite is generally the case; active social awareness and mindfulness is a big part of what people variously call "EQ", "empathy", "cross-cultural competence", etc.)
    - ratmeadow 10mo ago
      Fair point about lying. I agree, outright lying is not ethical and would be more manipulative, I agree. Is the author lying?
scandox 10mo ago
That is a mistake I think. Many 'normal' people who grow up (emotionally) make a conscious effort not to instrumentalize their social interactions even if they do know how to do it. Certainly with friends they aim to be authentic. I think emulating things that a serious person discards is a step backwards.
- ses1984 10mo ago
  Isn’t aiming to be authentic a form of “instrumentalizing”?
  - Nevermark 10mo ago
    Being authentic, is about understanding oneself, and being able to communicate oneself better to others so they can understand you better too. When we win, by being a better collaborator with others, it isn't operating in a shallow or selfish sense. It isn't treating others like instruments for our benefit over theirs. It isn't manipulation.
    - ses1984 10mo ago
      We are mincing words. I don’t think collaboration, altruism, and other pro social traits are exclusive of instrumentalizing. Whatever word you want to use that encompasses pro social behaviors, let’s use that word if you don’t like instrumentalizing.
      - Nevermark 10mo ago
        > We are mincing words. Good point. These words are unfortunately loaded. "instrumentalizing" is so close to "instrument" for me to see them as unrelated in meaning. But lots of similar words drift in meaning, or have several interpretations. I don't have any issue with people doing things for "natural" reasons, vs. realpolitik analytical reasons, when the motive is still benefit-neutral, or benefit-benefit relative to ourselves-others.
  - K0balt 10mo ago
Aurornis 10mo ago
> A lot of stuff "normal" people do is charm, manipulate, and game social interactions. Except because they are not conscious about it, we give them a pass. I don’t think that’s a fair comparison to what’s describe in this blog post. The writer describes taking on different personas and trying different tricks with other people portrayed as subjects of some sort of experiment. The casual mentions of how they tried some conversational trick and got someone into full on sobbing was particularly striking because there was hardly a mention of concern for the other person. The only discussion was about the trick used to elicit the response. That is what I do not agree is consistent with normal interactions. Most people would feel some degree of guilt or dirtiness, for lack of a better word, if they used some of these tricks to lure random interactions into a false sense of connection and feigned friendship, especially if for no other reason to experiment on the other person.
- phantasmish 10mo ago
  > The writer describes taking on different personas and trying different tricks with other people portrayed as subjects of some sort of experiment. It’s typically not done quite so intentionally, but this sounds like most folks’ junior high and high school years. Sometimes also college. I know I totally changed in those years, and it was mostly by noticing what “worked” and leaning into it.
  - whstl 10mo ago
    It is also how a lot of people behave professionally and in their dating life, even later in life.
- intended 10mo ago
  The “trick” you are referring to, requires you to care about other people in the first place. As I recall, the section this came up was when they were coaching. This does feel like another instance of how people have a deep instinctual grasp of social interactions, but a shallow ability to articulate the moving parts in detail. I think the analogy was “everyone know how to use the flush, but they can’t explain the mechanisms behind it”
- 10mo ago
paulmooreparks 10mo ago
I'm not entirely sure what constitutes "normal" anyway. A frequent tongue-in-cheek topic of conversation between my wife (a counselling psychologist) and me is how we're weird, and everyone else seems to be normal, where "normal" in this thread of conversation usually describes some sort of puzzling behaviour.
- hgomersall 10mo ago
  Each one of us occupies our hallowed space in the rich tapestry of neurodiversity. Only a few people design our social institutions though. "Normal" is looking like those few, and tbh, varies widely. Compare normal at a Cambridge academic department and normal at the local gym and normal at the BBC.
1shooner 10mo ago
>A lot of stuff "normal" people do is charm, manipulate, and game social interactions. Except because they are not conscious about it, we give them a pass. One of the characteristics of autistic-spectrum individuals is that they must make a conscious effort to achieve goals that are achieved unconsciously by most of us. I have to say this strikes me as a very distorted perception. I don't know about 'normal,' but a socially successful person isn't intuiting their behavior subconsciously, they have learned it, and are actively mindful of it as they engage in it. Otherwise I think socializing would be excruciatingly boring. I think the distinction is that they had the capacity to learn from interacting with others, and had the confidence to iterate until they became comfortable with their social skills (which to others may appear 'unconscious'). I also don't think normative social interaction has much tolerance for manipulation. Maybe in the scope of a night out socializing or a business transaction, but in the context of actual relationships, those people are often ostracized or avoided in my experience.
- underlipton 10mo ago
  >they had the capacity to learn from interacting with others Or, were allowed to learn it from others. >and had the confidence to iterate Or, the safety to iterate. This seems to be just shifting where socially-successful people received uncommon benefit-of-the-doubt.
- makeitdouble 10mo ago
  I read parent's wording of "manipulation" as not in the usual negative connotation, and more as making the other person do something specific. For instance if you wanted a security guard to help you find your way in a shopping mall, there would be approaches that are more effective than others. For instance making it sound more like you have something important to do and they'd save your day by helping isn't specially abusing the person. They might feel pretty good about helping you, it's still somewhat part of their job so you're not tricking them either.
- coldtea 10mo ago
  >I have to say this strikes me as a very distorted perception. I don't know about 'normal,' but a socially successful person isn't intuiting their behavior subconsciously, they have learned it, and are actively mindful of it as they engage in it. Lots and lots of, if not most, social behaviors are intuited subconsciously. And that's even if the person has actively studied and learned them (and most are picked up by osmosis, not consciously learned anyway). >I also don't think normative social interaction has much tolerance for manipulation. Maybe in the scope of a night out socializing or a business transaction, but in the context of actual relationships, those people are often ostracized or avoided in my experience. That's either oblivious to 90% of social interactions out there, or just understands "manipulation" at the con artist or sociopath level. Even wearing nice clothes to make a better impression is a kind of manipulation. Same for using different manners of speaking and language in different social contexts, and lots of other stuff.
gblargg 10mo ago
What comes across as creepy about the techniques is that the approach doesn't seem to involve personal consequences; it seems to be sterile, like a game with no negative effects if it goes wrong. Normal people have all sorts of anxiety and potential hurt if they do these things, since they know how they affect others. Personally I'd prefer that "spectrum" individuals just be themselves. I take it as my own shortcoming if I can't establish a dialog. I like the challenge of interacting with someone who does things very differently. This of course assumes there's a genuine desire to connect. I knew someone who had some techniques like this, and it was weird interacting with him. The techniques put up a barrier and it didn't feel authentic. Maybe I'm jaded but I see it as a failure of the "normal" person if they can't deal with someone who communicates differently. All their issues just get triggered, not the fault of the spectrum individual, and not their responsibility to overcome. As a practical measure for just dealing with these people, I could see using techniques. But not when you actually want to relate with someone.
- ryanjshaw 10mo ago
  > I'd prefer that "spectrum" individuals just be themselves Society at large teaches them this is not safe and they will be excluded (e.g. no friends, no dates, etc) if they do not adapt.
  - lazide 10mo ago
    Or worse, actively targeted by bullies.
- whstl 10mo ago
  This is very strange to me. As a neurotypical person (I don't think the term "normal" is appropriate) I'm probably doing or did the same things the article is talking about. And I never thought about negative consequences, except when I was extremely anxious. If anything, people on the spectrum, introvert, or just awkward are probably thinking about the consequences (positive or negative) way more than someone like me. I also agree with the sibling post. The failure of most (?) neurotypical people to accept people on the spectrum as-is shouldn't be a burden on them. If society can't make them safe, they should do whatever is best for them. "Authenticity" (which is just an illusion anyway) be damned.
lazyeye 10mo ago
Recommend this book about how we have evolved to deceive ourselves about our true motives, in order to better deceive others... The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28820444-the-elephant-in-the-brain https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28820444-the-elephant-in...
whstl 10mo ago
It's very strange that people are ok with people charming others "naturally" (while it's probably because they learned by imitation, often from parents) while "practicing it" is seen as bad and manipulative. It's the same with genetics. Getting lucky with looks is fine but working for the same goal (eg surgery) is somehow bad and people often hide it.
- YurgenJurgensen 10mo ago
  You say ‘somehow’ like the reasoning isn’t obvious. Physical attractiveness is a signal of reproductive fitness when it’s genetic, and not otherwise.
  - whstl 10mo ago
    This is a bullshit rationalization for horrible behavior. The people doing the judging certainly aren't gonna reproduce with 99.99999% of the people being judged, and I'm being extremely generous here.
    - lazide 10mo ago
      Sure, but why would they care? And why do you think it matters?
      - whstl 10mo ago
        That's precisely my point. If you're not gonna reproduce with someone, their "reproductive fitness" is none of your business. Once again this is just a rationalization for horrible behavior.
        lmz 10mo ago
        You could argue that they are ruining the value of the signal for everyone.
        10mo ago
kakacik 10mo ago
Nah, that's definitely not a norm. By that definition me and a lot of people from where I come from including whole family and friends/classmates would quality as autistic. I know form experience this is baseline for some people and they simply can't work 'naturally' with others but I'd grade them as 1-2 out of 10 in sociopathic spectrum. That is by no means a negative denigration of them just describing their behavior (and struggles) in the best way I can. Interestingly not current corporate banking work, where this would be true but then this is highly sociopathic environment with dominant culture that doesn't do direct honest feedback generally. But generally finance attracts the worst of the (smart) crowd so thats not in any way a reference of mankind. So its cultural quite a lot. I presume you meant some rather extreme situation of above by describing it as autistic-spectrum.

pseidemann 10mo ago

Agreed. It's the playbook of social interaction written out. Nothing offensive about that.

collingreen 10mo ago
Sometimes we find it distasteful to have things we're fully aware of explicitly spelled out. A trite quip here is "nobody wants to see how the sausage is made".
- jamilton 10mo ago
  Yeah. I wonder why that is - is it because it highlights a conflict between our actions and values? If left unexamined, it's a non-issue, so having it spelled out feels like a problem being created?
  - switchbak 10mo ago
    I would much rather assume the people I'm interacting with are honest and conveying their real feelings, vs playing some (probably) Machiavellian game with N levels of dishonesty and manipulation from what could easily be a malevolent person at the core. At least that tends to be the assumption when you pick up on a lack of authenticity in this way. When you have a real indication of dealing with a master manipulator, it's very understandable that you should use an abundance of caution. That's probably an instinct in us at this level. Of course everyone is at least a little aware that they're putting on a bit of a ruse with their public persona, but that needs to be tethered to some level of authenticity or you'll just be sending out Patrick Bateman vibes.
    - throwaway2037 10mo ago
      > When you have a real indication of dealing with a master manipulator This statement seems like a paradox. Forgive my "No True Scotsman" example. If the person is such a "master manipulator" what indications do you have? The social normies will miss them, or will think they are the ones making the suggestions/decisions. This is the hallmark of master craft sales people.
    - avhception 10mo ago
      This strikes me as a glass-half-empty interpretation. Why is the stuff from the blog post necessarily machiavellian and manipulative? I didn't read any of that into that blog post. Rather, it was about how to create win-win situations where the people involved genuinely enjoy each others company. No need for bad intentions here.
    - mewpmewp2 10mo ago
      Wouldn't you think it is more important what the goal for the other person is? If their goal is to enrich and make both of your lives better, does it matter whether they consicously use social techniques or have natural automatic ability to do so? It is also autism vs psychopathy. Patrick Bateman is nowhere close to someone autistic trying to learn those socially successful behaviours. Patrick Bateman is a terrible human being not because they are inauthentic, he is a terrible human being because of the acts he did and wanted to do.
  - collingreen 10mo ago
    I like your description. I think sometimes this is when we find our way to the middle of two relatively simple drives: "be an orthodox group member/ avoid being a social outcast" and "avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance / admitting hypocrisy". If there aren't immediate consequences for inaction (especially if there ARE costs and/or social consequences for action) were very good at convincing ourselves to ignore it (or tell ourselves we will EVENTUALLY deal with it but just not right now)
- etangent 10mo ago
  100% correct.
- guy2345 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tomhow 10mo ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
    - guy2345 10mo ago
      [dead]
- ribosometronome 10mo ago
  It may be the first time many people are actively considering these things if they haven't generally felt social struggles / aren't on the spectrum.
- skeeter2020 10mo ago
  Sometimes doing something explicit that is typically done without thought or plan feels phony and off. This is such a scenario.
  - pixl97 10mo ago
    Embracing the bliss of ignorance.
  - robocat 10mo ago
    That's not what I got from the article. Firstly they seem to be saying that they were not seen as phony (hard to judge). Sure they're using tricks, but they were copying tricks off other people! Not all social interaction is genuinely raw. I thought the article was more about leaning into their own style, becoming more intuitive over time.
ghurtado 10mo ago
I would take it further and say that the more light we bring to this subject, the less it becomes the exclusive domain of snake oil salesmen and the "sales tips 101" type books, and the more inoculated the general public becomes to manipulation.
- overfeed 10mo ago
  Why dontou consider it "manipulation"? Would you consider what goes into you resume, or performance/promotion packet "manipulation"? In every interaction there are spoken and unspoken rules, and those who excel tend to be those who can understand the subtext and express themselves effectively.
  - zozbot234 10mo ago
    It depends, of course. Some people might fill their resume with outright BS, and this would be widely regarded as manipulative.
    - mewpmewp2 10mo ago
      Depends how you define outright BS. I bet most people at least cherrypick the best data points amongst thousands of possible, giving a look that doesn't really represent them as a whole. And then they omit some undesirable things. Similar to how people on social media will only post their best moments, giving inaccurate representation of their lives and themselves while overall causing others to feel like they are missing out, etc. So here is the skill of being able to cherrypick data to give the best representation of yourself as opposed to true average honest overview of oneself. Then the skill of avoiding answering questions you don't want to answer to by answering by talking about what you want to talk about (think politicians). Same is with real life interactions. Among 1000s of things you could say or do there is always some that are more effective than others in reaching a certain goal, whether it is getting a job, making a sale, convincing someone, making a friend or whatever. Is it manipulative only if you make up something or if you are able to get people to do what you want by being able to cherrypick the most convincing ideas, arguments, facts etc.
gausswho 10mo ago
A self-help book that took off saying the quiet part out loud is How to Win Friends & Influence People. It predates the 'influencer'.
- kragen 10mo ago
  https://dn720004.ca.archive.org/0/items/english-collections-1/How%20To%20Win%20Friends%20And%20Influence%20People%20-%20Carnegie%2C%20Dale.pdf https://dn720004.ca.archive.org/0/items/english-collections-...

spicyusername 10mo ago

That's a pretty cynical take on what "normal" people are doing.

ndr 10mo ago
It is weird, but part of the skill is to surf exactly on that line that is normal without crossing it. Almost all honest signals are about a similar tradeoff.

zozbot234 10mo ago

A lot of normal people may routinely act charming and game social interactions, but they generally aren't being "manipulative" in the process. "Manipulation" is really just a polite word for routinely lying and BS'ing people on the off-chance that they are going to be fooled and/or not want to call you out on it. If you're reasonably socially skilled, you can usually see it coming a mile away and react accordingly, but what gets you in trouble is the not-so-common case where you actually fall for it, since the consequences can be quite bad. None of this is describing ordinary social interaction, tough; these are really two entirely separate topics, and there's little reason to conflate them.

ratmeadow 10mo ago
So for the same set of actions, it's fine if you're unaware of the underlying mechanisms, and manipulation if you are aware? If you dig through the weeds of it you can argue just about everything we do socially is manipulation. We are social because we're social animals and will die without help from other humans (well, particularly thousands of years ago). At the end of the day, we are nice to people to get things from them that we need - food, shelter, knowledge, strength. It's always been like that. But because it makes us feel fuzzy and good, apparently that's not manipulation, that's being nice.
- zozbot234 10mo ago
  You can absolutely be charming towards people and play the "game" of social interaction while being quite aware that this is what you're doing. The point is that this need not involve outright lying or BS at all and that the latter is what such terms as "manipulation" actually imply in a very practical sense; not that it somehow counts against you if you're aware of what's happening at a pure level of social interaction. (In fact, the opposite is generally the case; active social awareness and mindfulness is a big part of what people variously call "EQ", "empathy", "cross-cultural competence", etc.)
  - ratmeadow 10mo ago
    Fair point about lying. I agree, outright lying is not ethical and would be more manipulative, I agree. Is the author lying?

scandox 10mo ago

That is a mistake I think. Many 'normal' people who grow up (emotionally) make a conscious effort not to instrumentalize their social interactions even if they do know how to do it. Certainly with friends they aim to be authentic. I think emulating things that a serious person discards is a step backwards.

ses1984 10mo ago
Isn’t aiming to be authentic a form of “instrumentalizing”?
- Nevermark 10mo ago
  Being authentic, is about understanding oneself, and being able to communicate oneself better to others so they can understand you better too. When we win, by being a better collaborator with others, it isn't operating in a shallow or selfish sense. It isn't treating others like instruments for our benefit over theirs. It isn't manipulation.
  - ses1984 10mo ago
    We are mincing words. I don’t think collaboration, altruism, and other pro social traits are exclusive of instrumentalizing. Whatever word you want to use that encompasses pro social behaviors, let’s use that word if you don’t like instrumentalizing.
    - Nevermark 10mo ago
      > We are mincing words. Good point. These words are unfortunately loaded. "instrumentalizing" is so close to "instrument" for me to see them as unrelated in meaning. But lots of similar words drift in meaning, or have several interpretations. I don't have any issue with people doing things for "natural" reasons, vs. realpolitik analytical reasons, when the motive is still benefit-neutral, or benefit-benefit relative to ourselves-others.
- K0balt 10mo ago

Aurornis 10mo ago

> A lot of stuff "normal" people do is charm, manipulate, and game social interactions. Except because they are not conscious about it, we give them a pass. I don’t think that’s a fair comparison to what’s describe in this blog post. The writer describes taking on different personas and trying different tricks with other people portrayed as subjects of some sort of experiment. The casual mentions of how they tried some conversational trick and got someone into full on sobbing was particularly striking because there was hardly a mention of concern for the other person. The only discussion was about the trick used to elicit the response. That is what I do not agree is consistent with normal interactions. Most people would feel some degree of guilt or dirtiness, for lack of a better word, if they used some of these tricks to lure random interactions into a false sense of connection and feigned friendship, especially if for no other reason to experiment on the other person.

phantasmish 10mo ago
> The writer describes taking on different personas and trying different tricks with other people portrayed as subjects of some sort of experiment. It’s typically not done quite so intentionally, but this sounds like most folks’ junior high and high school years. Sometimes also college. I know I totally changed in those years, and it was mostly by noticing what “worked” and leaning into it.
- whstl 10mo ago
  It is also how a lot of people behave professionally and in their dating life, even later in life.
intended 10mo ago
The “trick” you are referring to, requires you to care about other people in the first place. As I recall, the section this came up was when they were coaching. This does feel like another instance of how people have a deep instinctual grasp of social interactions, but a shallow ability to articulate the moving parts in detail. I think the analogy was “everyone know how to use the flush, but they can’t explain the mechanisms behind it”
10mo ago

paulmooreparks 10mo ago

I'm not entirely sure what constitutes "normal" anyway. A frequent tongue-in-cheek topic of conversation between my wife (a counselling psychologist) and me is how we're weird, and everyone else seems to be normal, where "normal" in this thread of conversation usually describes some sort of puzzling behaviour.

hgomersall 10mo ago
Each one of us occupies our hallowed space in the rich tapestry of neurodiversity. Only a few people design our social institutions though. "Normal" is looking like those few, and tbh, varies widely. Compare normal at a Cambridge academic department and normal at the local gym and normal at the BBC.

1shooner 10mo ago

>A lot of stuff "normal" people do is charm, manipulate, and game social interactions. Except because they are not conscious about it, we give them a pass. One of the characteristics of autistic-spectrum individuals is that they must make a conscious effort to achieve goals that are achieved unconsciously by most of us. I have to say this strikes me as a very distorted perception. I don't know about 'normal,' but a socially successful person isn't intuiting their behavior subconsciously, they have learned it, and are actively mindful of it as they engage in it. Otherwise I think socializing would be excruciatingly boring. I think the distinction is that they had the capacity to learn from interacting with others, and had the confidence to iterate until they became comfortable with their social skills (which to others may appear 'unconscious'). I also don't think normative social interaction has much tolerance for manipulation. Maybe in the scope of a night out socializing or a business transaction, but in the context of actual relationships, those people are often ostracized or avoided in my experience.

underlipton 10mo ago
>they had the capacity to learn from interacting with others Or, were allowed to learn it from others. >and had the confidence to iterate Or, the safety to iterate. This seems to be just shifting where socially-successful people received uncommon benefit-of-the-doubt.
makeitdouble 10mo ago
I read parent's wording of "manipulation" as not in the usual negative connotation, and more as making the other person do something specific. For instance if you wanted a security guard to help you find your way in a shopping mall, there would be approaches that are more effective than others. For instance making it sound more like you have something important to do and they'd save your day by helping isn't specially abusing the person. They might feel pretty good about helping you, it's still somewhat part of their job so you're not tricking them either.
coldtea 10mo ago
>I have to say this strikes me as a very distorted perception. I don't know about 'normal,' but a socially successful person isn't intuiting their behavior subconsciously, they have learned it, and are actively mindful of it as they engage in it. Lots and lots of, if not most, social behaviors are intuited subconsciously. And that's even if the person has actively studied and learned them (and most are picked up by osmosis, not consciously learned anyway). >I also don't think normative social interaction has much tolerance for manipulation. Maybe in the scope of a night out socializing or a business transaction, but in the context of actual relationships, those people are often ostracized or avoided in my experience. That's either oblivious to 90% of social interactions out there, or just understands "manipulation" at the con artist or sociopath level. Even wearing nice clothes to make a better impression is a kind of manipulation. Same for using different manners of speaking and language in different social contexts, and lots of other stuff.

gblargg 10mo ago

What comes across as creepy about the techniques is that the approach doesn't seem to involve personal consequences; it seems to be sterile, like a game with no negative effects if it goes wrong. Normal people have all sorts of anxiety and potential hurt if they do these things, since they know how they affect others. Personally I'd prefer that "spectrum" individuals just be themselves. I take it as my own shortcoming if I can't establish a dialog. I like the challenge of interacting with someone who does things very differently. This of course assumes there's a genuine desire to connect. I knew someone who had some techniques like this, and it was weird interacting with him. The techniques put up a barrier and it didn't feel authentic. Maybe I'm jaded but I see it as a failure of the "normal" person if they can't deal with someone who communicates differently. All their issues just get triggered, not the fault of the spectrum individual, and not their responsibility to overcome. As a practical measure for just dealing with these people, I could see using techniques. But not when you actually want to relate with someone.

ryanjshaw 10mo ago
> I'd prefer that "spectrum" individuals just be themselves Society at large teaches them this is not safe and they will be excluded (e.g. no friends, no dates, etc) if they do not adapt.
- lazide 10mo ago
  Or worse, actively targeted by bullies.
whstl 10mo ago
This is very strange to me. As a neurotypical person (I don't think the term "normal" is appropriate) I'm probably doing or did the same things the article is talking about. And I never thought about negative consequences, except when I was extremely anxious. If anything, people on the spectrum, introvert, or just awkward are probably thinking about the consequences (positive or negative) way more than someone like me. I also agree with the sibling post. The failure of most (?) neurotypical people to accept people on the spectrum as-is shouldn't be a burden on them. If society can't make them safe, they should do whatever is best for them. "Authenticity" (which is just an illusion anyway) be damned.

lazyeye 10mo ago

Recommend this book about how we have evolved to deceive ourselves about our true motives, in order to better deceive others... The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28820444-the-elephant-in-the-brain https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28820444-the-elephant-in...

whstl 10mo ago

It's very strange that people are ok with people charming others "naturally" (while it's probably because they learned by imitation, often from parents) while "practicing it" is seen as bad and manipulative. It's the same with genetics. Getting lucky with looks is fine but working for the same goal (eg surgery) is somehow bad and people often hide it.

YurgenJurgensen 10mo ago
You say ‘somehow’ like the reasoning isn’t obvious. Physical attractiveness is a signal of reproductive fitness when it’s genetic, and not otherwise.
- whstl 10mo ago
  This is a bullshit rationalization for horrible behavior. The people doing the judging certainly aren't gonna reproduce with 99.99999% of the people being judged, and I'm being extremely generous here.
  - lazide 10mo ago
    Sure, but why would they care? And why do you think it matters?
    - whstl 10mo ago
      That's precisely my point. If you're not gonna reproduce with someone, their "reproductive fitness" is none of your business. Once again this is just a rationalization for horrible behavior.
      - lmz 10mo ago
        You could argue that they are ruining the value of the signal for everyone.
        10mo ago

kakacik 10mo ago

Nah, that's definitely not a norm. By that definition me and a lot of people from where I come from including whole family and friends/classmates would quality as autistic. I know form experience this is baseline for some people and they simply can't work 'naturally' with others but I'd grade them as 1-2 out of 10 in sociopathic spectrum. That is by no means a negative denigration of them just describing their behavior (and struggles) in the best way I can. Interestingly not current corporate banking work, where this would be true but then this is highly sociopathic environment with dominant culture that doesn't do direct honest feedback generally. But generally finance attracts the worst of the (smart) crowd so thats not in any way a reference of mankind. So its cultural quite a lot. I presume you meant some rather extreme situation of above by describing it as autistic-spectrum.