Yes, that perfectly matches my experiences.

I have far too much affective empathy, but struggle with cognitive empathy and often unintentionally make enemies because I am too clumsy with my words and social interactions, and can't properly gauge social roles (such as when a person looks up to me and would be hurt to hear any criticism from me.)

It stings me when people repeat that I have no empathy at all, and I wish this was better understood by others. Thank you for pointing it out so eloquently.

(Only speaking for myself here, not others! All of us are very different.)

You've quite succinctly described the Double Empathy Problem[1].

Personally I find it more strange that allistic[2] people can't understand autistic people. The supposed ability of allistic people to pick up on people's body language, social cues, and subtext, somehow doesn't extend to autistic individuals. Utterly baffling.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem

2. Allistic - not affected by autism

I don't think this is wholly accurate. My understanding was that people with autism commonly have deficient cognitive empathy (they have difficulty discerning others emotions) but not affective or emotional empathy (they get upset if they hear about others suffering).

With sociopaths, it's meant to be the other way round: normal (or better than normal) cognitive empathy, but a lack of affective empathy -- hence their purported skills in manipulation.

Can you explain this? I'm probably autistic-- my son was diagnosed and from my and my wife's research I am clearly autistic but haven't been diagnosed-- and I don't understand how I would start to try and do less "masking". I don't even really understand that, myself, because I'm in my 40's and just started learning about this stuff, so to me, "masking" is just who I am to other people.

This is sometimes called "double empathy problem", referring to the idea that there is a mutual difficulty communicating across neurotypes- neurotypical people struggle to understand autistic people because of a sort of "language barrier" rather than a deficit in neurodivergent communication skills per se.

https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/double-empathy-explained/

This line is very difficult to draw because we freely pollute the meaning of empathy as an internal feeling with empathy as an external behaviour. Under this definition of empathy we could be compelled to consider blind people incapable of empathy as they're incapable of recognising facial expressions, for obvious reasons we know better.

> It's not clear to me an autistic person told something would have the same impact. Even in non-autistic people, an experienced narrated/described doesn't usually have the same reaction as one experienced, and I think this is an important part of empathy (in a game-theoretic/evolutionary sense) as something that is not calculated.

The autistic response isn't calculated either, just lacking the facility to recognise some behavioural expressions of emotion. I'm an autistic man but as a child I recall collecting mountains upon mountains of stuffed toys, when they piled high enough to tumble from the bed I'd wake to some of them on the floor and I'd weep at the thought those toys had felt "left out" by being pushed from the bed overnight. (I was very young, cut some slack)

This kind of refrain is common, autistic people when questioned express feeling intense overwhelming affective empathy. Where autistic people classically struggle is in cognitive empathy employed as a social hierarchy mechanism and in socially acceptable expressions of empathy.

Also mentioned below, but https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/broken-mirrors-a-... would suggest exactly that it is related (or better, lack of empathy and autism are concomitant). You do have to consider the role of mirror neurons in empathy to make the connection.

Most people, I don't know, I can't speak for them. But I know not by the professionals who diagnose ASD here in my region. Because other explanations than autism get carefully evaluated via their own knowledge on the matter (at least 4 eyes, including a clinical psychologist, though possibly more), heteroanamnesis, and statements by a family member/friend to verify.

> Autism describes a specific sort of brain misdevelopment, psychopathy / narcissism / cognitive empathy / poorly-developed empathy / neurotypical / sensitive is something everyone can find meaning in.

I like this video [1] explaining how someone with autism can get overstimulated.

The thing with autism is: not two autistics are alike. They all have different issues, and might have different issues on top of autism, such as depression, anxiety, or ADHD (though the latter can only be diagnosed in childhood). That's also why I found it so very interesting to meet other people with autism from my region. I also feel less lonely that way. I go every month to a group of "fellow sufferers" (for lack of a better word in English I can think of).

As a final word, I can recommend to be very careful with psychedelics. For me, cannabis specifically, has triggered a few psychoses. Although the most severe one was due to stress.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgDR_gYk_a8

I'm able to mask until I'm alone. My meltdowns look exactly like the observed behavior you see in other people, I just hide it better.

I'm also verbal mostly, until I'm not and I'm dissociating. Then I look a lot what you're used to seeing, except i don't let you see that. I don't let you see me rocking and stimming.

I can talk for an hour in front of 100 people about my special interests at any depth, but I can't complete simple tasks that others can do every day like going to the grocery store and restaurants without extreme difficulty.

Some people are "high functioning" autists, meaning that they are able to suppress their negative autistic expressions for the benefit and comfort of people around them. This doesn't make them "not autistic", they still are even if you personally can't tell. It just means they're putting on an act for you, to make you happy, so that you don't respond in the negative way they are used to being received. You are witnessing a performance.

That suppression is not a constant, and it can't go on forever. Someone doing this long enough will go into autistic burnout, which is like an extended depression and comes with skill loss and an inability to function in society. If you were to see this person at that point, you'd "see" the autism then.

Is this all there is to being autistic though? No! Being autistic comes with a great capacity for curiosity, creativity, artistic expression, innovation, and excellence associated with committing fully (as in actually 100%, eschewing loved ones and society) to an endeavor.

These are things we don't want to "cure". Most of the problems I face related to my autism have to do with interfacing with society, and not understanding people or not being able to do things everyone else seems to be able to, without any compassion for my inability to do so.

As far as I can tell they come from being dysregulated, and being dysregulated comes from extreme sensory overload. If we can fix the sensory overload a lot of other things are fixed. But that doesn't mean we should be "curing" or "preventing" autism, and it doesn't mean people who aren't melting down and who can live by themselves aren't autistic -- they're just well regulated.,

That's a bit sweeping. Many doubtless would; but there are autistic people who are capable of self-reflection.

A somewhat exceptional example: Temple Grandin, PhD, who has extrapolated from her experience of having autism, specifically the sense of constantly being under threat from her surroundings, to advise on more humane ways of handling livestock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin#Career

Something like this? https://lemonandlively.com/allism/

From my perspective, the surprising thing about people not on the autistic spectrum is how often they lie, how often they stab each other in the back for quite trivial reasons, and how obsessed they are with evaluating and maintaining everyone's position in the pecking order -- they are barely able to think about anything else, at least half of their brains are always evaluating this.

And the famous "theory of mind" in most cases is merely the ability to understand someone who is almost the same. I mean, of course if someone thinks exactly the same way I do, it will be very easy for me to predict what they think. But find someone different (doesn't need to be autistic; any kind of difference will work) and suddenly most people's ability to read their mind is gone.

Please stop and go educate yourself.

ADHD is at times co-morbid with autism, but they are not the same thing, have different neurological causes, symptoms and treatments.

Sincerely, a diagnosed ADHD, non-autistic person that self-identifies as an empath (i.e. the opposite of a psychopath. I can read body language and empathise with people better than most. It's not always as fun as one might think.)

A common misconception is that empathy means love and compassion for everybody. No. It just means being able to easily put yourself in other people's shoes and feel their mental states. Empathy alone doesn't turn you into Mother Theresa.

Are you saying you're well-above average in being able to read neurotypical people in ordinary social settings? If that's the case, I don't think "autistic" is the correct description for your deviation from neurotypical. It's unclear to me if you're saying you have some kind of complex analytical models for people (to compensate for the inability to intuit) or merely that you are able to intuitively read people naturally neurotypicals do, in which case I'm not sure what you mean when you say you're autistic.

I'm fairly monotropic (so this is something I've paid a fair amount of attention to when observing others) but not even the least bit autistic. I also know a bunch of people on the autism spectrum as well as those that have varying degrees of monotropism. I don't see any particular correlation between the two, other than the fact that those on the spectrum tend to pay less attention to certain aspects of reality, while paying more attention to other aspects of reality, which makes neurotypicals feel that they are unusually focused.

Autistic people do things because they don't understand social norms.

Sociopaths do things because they don't _care_ about social norms.

There's a difference, and I can tell the difference. It is in a sociopath's best interest to pretend that they're autistic by the way.

Given how little we know about the inner mental states of sociopaths (as opposed to their outward behavior), I don't think we can simply assume that they're closer to the neurotypical ideal than autistics. (There's even some speculation that they may essentially be "emotional Reptilians", with an emotional palette that's essentially restricted to relatively basic drives - and that their consistent manipulation of others is in fact driven by the resource-acquisition drive.) There may even be multiple dimensions of viable empathy-signals; one kind may be especially cheap for neurotypicals, whilst a different kind may be cheap for the autistic.

Hi, autistic person here.

I was always relatively high-functioning, in some ways. I was always better than my peers at math and reading, but my social disability was crippling. In retrospect, I had a lot of the standard characteristics--repetitive movements, ADD, obsessive behavior, freaking out if things didn't fit my plans or expectations--but the inability to recognize social cues was the one that caused me the most trouble and pain.

And I fixed it. At some point in middle school, another autistic boy in my special-ed class was really annoying me, and I realized that he was acting exactly the same way I did. I could recognize it in him, but not in myself. So, to gloss over 20 years of effort and practice and failure, I taught myself to see myself as an outside observer, to judge my own behavior--first broadly, and slowly narrowing down to tone, word choice, and body language--as I would judge someone else's.

I'm pretty social these days. Most people don't know I'm autistic unless I tell them (which I do if it comes up; I'm not ashamed of it). A lot of the folks in the article would probably say that my autism had been cured. And they'd be full of shit.

I still obsess over minutae. Properly focused, it can be a genuine joy. It still really, seriously troubles me when plans are changed at the last minute, but most of the time I can take a deep breath and move on. I still stim, but I can suppress it around strangers. And, sometimes, with the right sort of data-analysis problem, I can apply the sort of absolute, crystalline clarity that people normally associate with Rain Man.

I am an autistic person who has learned good coping strategies. So are "B." and Mark Macluskie and Matt Tremblay and the rest. The article repeatedly mentions lingering autistic traits, like Mark's tactile aversions and Matt's flapping, but somehow they don't count. In this mindset, autism is a sickness, and if you're no longer visibly sick then you must not be autistic. That's bullshit. Autism is in the way your mind is shaped. It has good sides and it has bad sides. Some people, with the right treatment and insights, learn how to accentuate the good and minimize the bad. That's not a "cure," it's dealing with life.

> I know a lot about the topic of autism and related issues.

Me too. I have a diagnosis based on DSM-5, and with ICD numbers (for insurance related reasons I guess). My cousin had an Asperger diagnosis based on DSM-4 when that was still relevant. My partner likely has autism as well (though its difficult to diagnose for females), and I am getting therapy as well; both group therapy and family therapy. My partner received partner group therapy. I suspect its mostly from my father's side, but I see traits in my mother's side as well. Regarding my parents; I believe the spectrum was a non-conscious or perhaps subconscious important reason why they felt attracted to each other. YMMV.

> I get tired of seeing social difficulties chalked up to a label of some disability or other.

As a general note we shouldn't diagnose other people, but that wasn't the intent of my original post at all. I merely noted its a trait people with autism commonly have.

Conclusions such as that all people with autism have this, that all people in IT have this, or refuting such conclusions are all bifurcations from your own conto; not mine.

Why are people with autism often too direct? It is due to a weaker Theory of Mind (ToM) [1].

On HN we need to assume people mean the most positive with their posts. If we apply this on life, then all people want to function in society [even with their disabilities]. They want to have success in their communication. Heck, I do too! A repeating failure to communicate is a red flag of something being wrong with that person. It'd mean that those who are responsible for that person (professionals including in medical field, but also teachers, parents/caretakers, and if they're adult: themselves) should consider to seek professional help. A lot of people in our world end up in (deep) trouble such as addiction or prison while professional help could've helped them, and that very much saddens me (am currently watching series Orange Is The New Black).

> It takes a couple of decades to properly raise a human and prepare them for their role in society. A large part of social skills are learned behavior. This is why we have the term socialization.

For most people, they get to basic social levels during teenager years or young adultery. The problem is that people with autism -more so those without therapy/help- are generally worse at learning this (some are downright terrible).

Its important to note that not everyone has autism has exactly the same issues. Some people don't have much issues with ToM but rather with executive functioning (EF), or central coherence (CC). And even then, the lists for each of these are long. Specific sub-traits might be better or worse within each specimen.

> Furthermore, different approaches are normal in different contexts. Someone who is not autistic and has no difficulty understanding and navigating social things can have trouble when placed in a new situation, including but not limited to a different culture.

Well, that's including someone with undiagnosed autism, or mild autism. I recommend to stop seeing a situation like this as black-and-white (stop bifurcation) and start seeing the shades of grey.

> Accusations of being autistic as an explanation for abrasive behavior are almost never sympathetic. They are almost never an attempt to understand why someone is coming across poorly and find a way to better interact with them. They boil down to a suggestion of incompetence and a dismissal of the person's position, as well as any legitimate anger or frustration they may be feeling.

I don't see it as an accusation. I don't see autism as a negative trait per see. Not at all. I see it like a knife or computer; a tool which can be used for good and evil. That does explain why we're having this discussion in the first place though.

> There are cultures, including the American military, where being very blunt is the norm.

It should be noted this is a top-down hierarchy, and the bluntness is top-down as well; not bottom-up. The arguments used by such cathedral-style hierarchies are comprised of argumentum ad baculum (see hereunder for further discussion).

> As others have noted here, when people accuse someone of being rude, it very often means they don't like being disagreed with and are just looking for an excuse to be offended and level accusations.

That depends on their other arguments. Pointing out a fallacy such as an argumentum ad hominem doesn't mean everything the person said is invalid. It just points out the person is (partly) using a fallacy to make their point. It is, essentially, akin to telling someone to tone down their voice. Yes, it can be frustrating to hear that when you're angry, but that doesn't mean the person who points that out is wrong.

Similarly, someone replying to Torvalds: "could you please make your point without insults and vulgar language" isn't saying Torvalds has no point. As such, painting it as if I am trying to attack Torvalds with an ad hominem here is... frankly ridiculous. I don't always agree with his viewpoints, but I got nothing against the man.

> It seems you are trying to be an advocate for yourself and others with the same diagnosis. This is not the way to go about it. It comes across as simply insulting Linus Torvalds as an excuse to not take his position seriously while at the same time slandering the entire IT profession with a tired and untrue stereotype that everyone in IT has terrible social skills and they are all just aspie.

I'd say that's far-fetched and full with assumptions but if that's your interpretation of my post(s), so be it.

(I can't control myself to not include this so FYI: "Aspie" no longer exists since DSM-5. If someone calls me an Aspie they clearly are using old, outdated terminology.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Autism

> (...) in order to ever be in a position where they can join society and use them for good

But you are still judging the person as NT, which seems strange to me especially as you mentioned in previous comment you are autistic as well (unless I've read that incorrectly.) You should know in the first place that it is not up to you or me to judge the meaning of someones life, and especially autistic life. I said before that autistic brain works differently and this still applies. It works so differently that NT/ND comparison doesn't make any sense.

What if they don't want to be a member of the society? What if many of them care about society no more than about weather the other day? [1] You might be unaware, but lot of autistic people feel pride in how different they are, how autism shaped their lives and they wouldn't switch back to be NT if you gave them such option.

That being said I am not stating that low autistic people never seek for an interaction, understanding or just thoughts sharing. I am just stating that there is such a possibility. Even if they do, there is not much NT society can do fulfill their needs.

> He is the one we pity, though of course he does not mind his condition. (...) If we did not pity him then, why pity him now; in any case, who is there to pity? The intelligent adult has disappeared and for a creature like the one before us (...)

This. Exactly this. "We", "pity" and "creature." Author is happily measuring above mentioned person by his own ruler, his and the society he lives in (and stays in this manner throughout the essay.) It didn't occurred to him, or he decided to ignore the fact, that the subject is completely different person, now. It would be impossible to perceive the world as the subject so we have to extrapolate. But by doing so we must be aware that our own judgements does not apply anymore. We must throw away our pity. Do not try to be emphatic because you have no slightest idea how the subject feels.

1: https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergers/comments/7jw22y/i_dont_mi...

Edit: Changed "normal" to "NT" in one place. Overall point stays the same.

Excellent comment, which has me rethinking autism. It's a topic I've thought quite a bit about, since by all measures I am the polar opposite of autistic, I'm extremely abstract to the total neglect of detail, and yet I've always gravitated to friends high in autistic traits. Maybe they have or see something I lack.

The DSM-V defines autism by the disability it causes. The diagnostic criteria list are all things neurotypicals can do but autists struggle at. So I always saw it framed as a disability.

But could an equally compelling list of diagnostic criteria be written, which is all things autists can do but neurotypicals struggle at? Could neurotypical be framed as a disability?