Late in Life Autism Diagnosis

[little bongo]

Brief resurrection of this thread to note a nod to this sort of thing from The Chronicle:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/should-you-seek-an-adult-diagnosis-of-neurodivergence

In general, the main thrust is that yes, such a diagnosis could be helpful. And, I do think it helped me overall.

[smallcleanrat]

Been reading a book recommended to me by the clinic where I received my diagnosis.

It's called The Science of Making Friends: Helping Socially Challenged Teens and Young Adults. It was written by a professor at UCLA who directs a clinic offering social skills training to young people.

I've been seeing what I can glean from it, even though I am no longer in the high school/college-aged demographic the book is aiming to help.


I'm puzzled by a section in the book describing how to exit conversations.

(1) First, it says not to make your farewell too short (e.g. "Well, gotta go." or "See you later."), as this "would seem strange and possibly rude." It says it's better to give a reason for going (e.g. "Well, the bell is about to ring. I better get to class.") and then add on that "you'll see or speak to them later."

Why is the short version rude?

(2) But then the book cautions not to make the farewell explanation too long: "When people go on and on trying to explain why they have to do something it often sounds fake or made up."

I would have thought the reason not to go into too much detail would be that people are quite simply not likely to be interested. What about a detailed explanation makes it sound fake? Why doesn't lack of detail/vagueness make an explanation sound fake?

This was the book's example of an explanation that's too long:

"Well, the bell is about to ring and I have a science midterm. I don't want to be late because I've been late five times this semester and I don't want to get in trouble. My professor gets really uptight when people show up late and I don't want to make her mad right before an exam. So I better get going."

Does that seem fake? I don't get it.

(3) Then there's the case of how to leave when you're in a group but are being excluded from the conversation. (This is the scenario I find myself in a lot).

Slowly look away as if you're distracted by something. When you look away, make sure that you don't look all the way behind you. Instead, look to one side or the other or look at a personal item such as a mobile phone.

And then the advice about what to say (explanation + farewell) applies.

So...what is the purpose of looking to the side? Is the whole point to pretend something else has got your attention and that's why you're leaving? Isn't that being fake? Is being fake ok as long as you're not perceived to be fake? And why can't you look behind you?


Does it seem like this book is offering advice I can trust? Where do all these rules and protocols come from anyway?

[Wahoo Redux]

My parents taught me how to shake hands and make eye contact, how to properly answer the phone ("Redux residence. Wahoo speaking."), and how to scoop my soup spoon with correct decorum.  All of this was directed at adult behavior and was worthless in junior high.

Your book offers advice that is different in degree and kind to these but is still in the same kingdom, it seems to me---these are simple social survival techniques like eating soup correctly.  No one will be offended by them.  I'd suggest using them only when necessary or when feeling insecure.     

[spork]

[. . .]

Why is the short version rude?

[. . .]

Where do all these rules and protocols come from anyway?

[. . .]

Don't know how much science is in the book, but the answer to your questions: culture. The dominant norm in the USA and Canada is to utter a couple of short sentences in this situation, rather than only "I'm leaving now." Are there exceptions? Yes. But usually something like "I've got to get to class now. See you later" is sufficient.

It gets even more fun when interacting with people who have different cultural norms.

[smallcleanrat]

[. . .]

Why is the short version rude?

[. . .]

Where do all these rules and protocols come from anyway?

[. . .]

Don't know how much science is in the book, but the answer to your questions: culture. The dominant norm in the USA and Canada is to utter a couple of short sentences in this situation, rather than only "I'm leaving now." Are there exceptions? Yes. But usually something like "I've got to get to class now. See you later" is sufficient.

It gets even more fun when interacting with people who have different cultural norms.

Does a longer explanation really sound fake?

[apl68]

[. . .]

Why is the short version rude?

[. . .]

Where do all these rules and protocols come from anyway?

[. . .]

Don't know how much science is in the book, but the answer to your questions: culture. The dominant norm in the USA and Canada is to utter a couple of short sentences in this situation, rather than only "I'm leaving now." Are there exceptions? Yes. But usually something like "I've got to get to class now. See you later" is sufficient.

It gets even more fun when interacting with people who have different cultural norms.

Does a longer explanation really sound fake?

It can be perceived as fake.  Mainly it just sounds awkward.  I sometimes catch myself trying to over-explain things, and realize afterward that I should have kept it simple.  I hear others do it too.  So it's not a disastrous thing to do.  Just something to be aware of and to try compensating for if you have a strong tendency in that direction.

I've always been, and to some extent still am, very socially awkward.  The main thing I've found that helps is simply to practice and pay attention until I get better over time.  Some of us--and I do mean that "us"--are not as fast to learn these things as others. 

Think of it as learning a language.  Social interactions are governed by a sort of "language" of commonly understood practices.  Reading up about it can be helpful, but the only way to really learn it is to do it. 

There is also a saying that "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly."  In other words, get over the fear of mistakes, make them, and learn from them as part of the process of eventually gaining competency.  This is a principle of things that really can't be learned well without real-world practices, such as language learning. 

Though I inherited much of my mother's aptitude for language learning, I was never able to overcome my inhibitions about making mistakes to put in the necessary practice of speaking other languages to develop real fluency in them.  I let these inhibitions stifle my own learning and potential in that area.  When it came to developing day-to-day social skills, I simply had no choice but to keep practicing until I got better.  It was a painful process at times, but it had to be done.  It was well worth doing.

[little bongo]

Agree with ap168 about the awkwardness. A lot of this is learning to "perform" social conventions convincingly.

Also, with over-explaining, we also inadvertently raise the question of if we have to leave right away, why are we spending so much time explaining?

[Hegemony]

The potential that it sounds fake is because when people go into too much detail about something, it's often that they're lying and trying too hard to make up an excuse. "I wasn't out late with Emily, honey — it's just that I remembered we didn't have any milk so I stopped at the grocery — um, but I didn't bring back any milk because, um, it turned out they had run out of milk so I asked at the front desk if they had any more back in storage, and, um, so they had to get the manager and it took a long time, and, um..." It's a kind of running on that people do when they're stuck for an excuse. So if you give a dozen details about why you have to go, not only is it dull for the listener, but it's the kind of overuse of detail that's often associated with trying too hard to make an excuse. It comes across as weirdly inappropriate to the situation, as well as trying the listener's patience.