Anyone had to take a break from reading something because it reminded them too much of their childhood?
I remember being terrified every time I had to complete a task for my parents involving strangers (usually shopkeepers) because I would practice what I was going to say but there would always be something that went off-script. They wouldn’t have the thing but would send me to some other person who might, or the price would be wrong or there would be a buy one get one free deal and I would have to explain why I had bought two home.
Anyway on a recommendation I started reading a story about a girl who was an unsanctioned archmage and had to hide the fact, I was not expecting the protagonist to have mild ASD and unlock a bunch of childhood memories every other chapter.
Story is Archmage Coefficient if you are curious, although I’m only at ch. 7 so I can’t promise anything about later chapters.
Had to develop some strategies for this:
“What is your second choice. And if neither is available?” Worked wonders tbh.
childhood trauma intensifies
Oh man. I thought everybody did this. Does an NT not predict consequences in real time? Do they not make contingency scripts on the way to the market?
Also, of course this is a story about masking latent powers lol awesome
So this is pure conjecture and makes far too many assumptions about ASD and NT people; but I have two theories:
I suspect NT have an easier time with these situations since they have an easier time reading the emotions of others, which means they have a more accurate understanding of the consequences. ASD people are less confident in understanding how others may react so they catastrophize (X will be upset with me because I didn’t do exactly Y)
NT people know that the person on the counter isn’t mad that they don’t have correct change, they know that their parents are happy about the effort and the will to help ileven if the outcome isn’t the same.
Theory 2 which is related: A reliance on rules, scripts patterns and rituals to navigate the world makes uncontrollable deviations from these highly unpleasant, and empathy suggests that things you find unpleasant are probably unpleasant for others too.
This is compounded by the way people react negatively to atypical social reactions (this looks a lot like you have broken someone’s social interaction script and they are unhappy)
This then loops into itself and causes recursive problems; if you are forced off script you have atypical social interactions (I don’t have enough money for this, can I go home and get more) Vs the normal interactions the chaser has. This means you can perceive yourself as propagating your troubles to everyone else. E.g. if you bring home the wrong fish will your parents still be able to cook dinner or will they have to gasp improvise on the recipe.
By contrast NT people can see that the cashier experiencing unusual circumstances isn’t a problem, they don’t care and are just happy that the weird customer isn’t demanding to speak to the manager because something was out of stock.
All of this means that NT people have a reduced (and more accurate) perception of the stakes involved and therefore less stress and less need to over-plan.
Mom’s (inevitable) annoyance is the extreme priority here, which seems to be the only consideration. This misses how a vendor not having the desired product would be the source of annoyance.
All the hallmarks of planning and improvising alternatives are all here. However, whether there’s another fish vendor with trout, for example, is clouded by this fear of mom being annoyed. That’s what gets the mental attention.
So that stands out to me: a child’s fear of parental backlash being paralyzing. Just roadblocks the whole process.
Oh. I thought it was about having a strict parent. Her thought process seems entirely reasonable to me. My mother would’ve absolutely yell at me if I came home without/with the wrong fish. She’s yelled at me over getting the wrong color eggs (despite never specifying beforehand).
Thank you, O kind and wise internet stranger. What you’ve said speaks deeply to me about my own self-limiting behaviors when it comes to social interacting at large. I hate to inconvenience anyone so I avoid starting interactions at a cost to my happiness. I’m finding out that I perceive small inconveniences as much larger than they are, while most people perceive small problems more accurately, like you said.
I think you got it exactly, and if you expand “social interactions” to include text conversations like this one, a narrow idea of what is “correct” is probably why so many of us here seem to care for good grammar.
Going even further, I’d say it impacts any sort of “performance” that might have social consequences of any kind. I’ve been a perfectionist most of my life to the point that I would avoid trying a lot of things I couldn’t reasonably be sure I’d succeed at on the first try. Any failure would also shut me down pretty hard. In other words, other people’s “good enough” was my “unacceptable.” Only recently did I learn that’s common among autists, and it’s something I’m still working on.
On the bright side calibration is improved through experience, so you will only get better and better at it as you live your life 🙂
We do. I think a stronger innate understanding of the relationships involved makes it a lower-stress affair.
“I’ll do my best. It might work out, it might not… but even if I fuck it up and my mom is annoyed, I think that’s ok, because I can navigate my mother being annoyed effectively”
Yep. I read the over concern as a stress reaction to trying to please an emotionally abusive parent – which also works with an nt child.
“I will do my best to make this work out an even if it goes perfectly my parent may still find a reason to meltdown.”
An NT person wouldn’t consider someone else not having something they were told to get to be their problem, it’s not like they can make trout appear, it is what it is. There’s no alternative action here, you just buy the fish unless you have an explicit reason not to like “ONLY buy trout” or “Don’t spend a single penny more than X” and since there’s no alternative action there’s nothing to worry about or consider, there is no reason to expect a negative consequence in this situation, and if there was it would be chalked up to the person who is upset being unreasonable. Most of them can also process language quickly enough scripts aren’t needed.
I didn’t ask to be called out like that this morning
Is it unreasonable to not have a few what-ifs in situations like this? My SO gets annoyed when I build up a tree of conditions, but why not be prepared, as it’s possible things aren’t as perfect as assumed. Also, my mind in reading that passage kept thinking, if this is the only source for fish, then get what they have, but can’t you get two smaller ones for the same price (they usually are sold by weight, afaik)? Maybe being too analytical of a fiction piece is a sign of something…
That’s how I learned to survive as an adult. After a few years of practice, I started needing the scripts and plans and backup scripts and plans less. Just do what you need to do.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable, but it may come a doss as unusual as it’s a small amount of extra work that most people don’t feel the need to do or at least not to the same extent; they are much more comfortable being reactive and only planning for contingencies after the primary plan fails.
I guess it’s a social thing, when you’d rather just do the thing and be done with it vs. extra interactions. Sort of what the character does, if there had been two trout then the encounter would have been done with and no potential drama of making the wrong choices.
And in the end if she just got the one fish, she may have been told when she got back, “that’s fine” and all the drama was inside her head all along.
I’ve had to take breaks from reading things that were too relatable in order to process them, but I can’t remember anything like that particular to ASD and childhood at the moment. Then again, I can’t say I’ve read many stories with an ASD protagonist at all. Maybe I should fix that, so thanks for the reading recommendation.
Anyway, my brain was so used to contingency planning I don’t think this particular situation ever happened to me. I would have immediately flagged it and asked, "What should I do if they don’t have trout?, then asked a bunch of followup questions for acceptable other items, alternative places to check, etc. until I either had an acceptably thorough decision tree or annoyed the other person into giving up or understanding that they might not get what they want if reality doesn’t comply.
Seems to me that fish-seller is pushing the salt fish. Is there not another kind of substitute fish which might be less expensive? So that she could bring home enough for a proper dinner?
This is the exact type of thought that only ever shows up after the whole thing is over and done with, likely while overthinking it on the walk home.
Well yeah, easy for me to say without an expectant fish-seller in front of me and an expectant parent waiting at home.
