"I Am Autistic." "I'm Not." A Diablogue

Diablogue #15: 

 

Helpful Hint:  Aspies should use discretion in taking things at face value.

 

So, let’s diablogue: 

Ken: I would like to talk about how I often fall victim to intentional or unintentional breaches of morals and ethics.

Christina: Ok.

Ken: I have gradually found out that my brain is hardwired with an inviolable moral code and set of ethics that others do not have to the same degree. That discovery was a sequence of real shocks and a harsh awakening. Because I am biologically predisposed to follow the code, I still have a hard time following my own helpful hint at the top of this post.

Christina: For example?

Ken: Intent. When a person tells me something, I take that at face value and believe that it is true.

Christina: But sometimes it’s not.

Ken: Correct. And it can be unintentional or intentional. For example, an incident occured during my employment as a journeyman electrician. My boss indicated that I would be moving to a foreman position. I took his word for it. After several months of not advancing, I approached him to enquire about the position. He denied that he ever made the offer and eventually they moved someone else into the position.

Christina: Rotten. But lots of people get jilted out of jobs like that.

Ken: Yes. However, they can pick up on some indicators about whether the person making the offer is genuine, or they will ask more questions immediately that will clarify the situation.

Christina: Got it. You believe the first things somebody says…

Ken: …because I cannot think in any duplicitous or hidden agenda or falsifying manners. I cannot imagine saying something to somebody and not meaning it, not following through. I cannot process that. Literally I do not understand. That is why it is extremely difficult in day-to-day interactions—in all interactions—to follow the helpful hint of using discretion in taking things at face value.

Christina: I see. Can you give another example?

Ken: Once while working at a computer and high tech shop, a customer came in with her child to have her personal laptop repaired. During the appointment, my observations indicated that it had likely been opened or repaired by an unauthorized person, so I asked her if that was the case. She looked me straight in the eye and said, “No, it has never been repaired by anyone else.” For the sake of brevity, her claim turned out to be untrue, yet to avoid being charged for repairs, she vehemently denied it—despite clear physical evidence to the contrary, and she escalated her claim three different times during the appointment to ever-increasing levels of management.

Christina: Wow. Brutal for you.

Ken: I was deeply shocked at how a young mother—who is supposed to be setting examples for her child—could make an initial false claim and then staunchly defend it. I could not process how she could state an untruth in the first place, and then found it even more impossible to process that she did it repeatedly in front of her child.

Christina: What happened to you—at that moment?

Ken: It made me nauseous and lightheaded. I got a headache.

Christina: And the thought of this incident still bothers you?

Ken: An accurate assessment. Because I cannot resolve it. I am still trying to figure it out. I am caught in a ‘do-while’ loop attempting—in vain— to process it because my brain does not allow me to think like that. I am completely unable to perform a moral or ethical violation similar to hers, especially in front of a child. On some occasions, if something like that happens and I have nothing else to distract me in the minutes or hours following, I cannot stop that do-while loop. My headaches will escalate into full blown, incapacitating migraines. At that point, the only exit, my only sanctuary, is to sleep.

Christina: Binge sleep. To process.

Ken: Affirmative. In some instances, the binge can persist for days.

Christina: Those can be strange social times for me, you know, suddenly alone and explaining to others that you are sleeping, yes, still sleeping! Most people don’t get it when I say you are in bed because of an upsetting incident at work or after a stressful but ordinary life event like…say… a major change in plans because stuff happens. But sudden shifts, especially in quick succession, rock your world; I know that now. And actually I have learned to relish most of those surprise alone times in the house. To enjoy them… sometimes I’ll watch a highly emotional film that I know you’d prefer not to watch, or I’ll go out and read at a cafe at suppertime. Adapting is critical. But back to most other people….Just like you can’t understand other peoples’ blasé reactions to life’s rocky moments, they can’t understand your extreme ones.

Ken: True.

Christina: I know it took years and a lot of reading and talking about autism for me to be OK with that aspect of your cognitive difference— your quickness to cognitive overload under certain stresses and your frequent need for extraordinary amounts of pass-out-dead-to-the-world sleep. And I think it’s taken years for you to fathom how I just go with the flow; water off a duck’s back when it comes to big or sudden shifts.

Ken: Affirmative. I am grateful that you understand. Many do not, I agree. I have gradually learned to accept your very different reactions and stresses, and I endeavour to adapt and adopt to your reasoning and methodologies.

Christina: We balance each other out, I think, on that score. Your two situation examples really illustrated the Theory of Mind issue we talked about last post. The challenges Aspies have with grasping—and accepting— that other people have very different thoughts, ideas, and beliefs.

Ken: That is correct. However, being with you has given me extremely valuable resources and insights to work around that which help me decrease the number of incidents and reduce their impact.

Christina: I think I urge you to be a little more aware of complexities. To ask more questions about things, right?

Ken: Indeed. And you and I develop scripts on how to do that and we practice them before certain situations, such as important meetings. The only way I can absorb these behaviours—to not take things at face value and to instead, question—is to repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat until they become part of my programming, part of my go-to self diagnostics and subroutines for my sanctuary and survival.

Christina: So sometimes, on your own, maybe using those scripts, you actually start asking questions instead of just accepting?

Ken: That is a correct assessment.

Christina: I’m curious… does that feel weird or unnatural for you? Doing it by script instead of, as I do, by impulse or intuition?

Ken: Just as with actual technology, I am always tweaking and making my programs more secure and safe.

Christina: Striking allusion! Secure and safe programs. It really fits how I believe you think.

Ken: That being said, much like in the actual tech world, I am always, as it were, one step behind the hackers.

Christina: So you mean that even with new automatic scripts….

Ken (interrupting) … people continue to find ways to hack morals and ethics, correct…

Christina (interrupting) …and you get hurt again. Taken advantage of.

Ken: Affirmative.

Christina: Seriously unfortunate. Ummm, we’ve run out of space. Gone over, really. Time to think about the next post.

Ken: How about we deal with multitasking?

Christina: A great topic. A particular area of strength—or vice?!— for me, I think! You, on the other hand, are free of its tyranny—though not from the problems of not being able to do it well.

Next post #16 ~ Executive functioning or prioritised multitasking

Diablogue #14: 

 

We’re back! Apologies for missing our post last week due to circumstances beyond our control.

Helpful Hint:  Be direct. Ask for what you need. A person on the spectrum is not wired for subtlety, grey, or to take hints.

 

So, let’s diablogue: 

Christina: You sometimes experience challenges with being able to grasp or accept that others can think or behave very differently from you. This can cause you great angst. For example, you can’t fathom —or tolerate—liars, whereas as I can observe or experience someone lying and ‘imagine’ or ‘back-engineer’ a set of life experiences—or even a one-off situation— that might have caused that person to lie. This is related to the concept of “theory of mind.” Here’s what the Autism Research Institute says about it:

“Theory of mind refers to the notion that many autistic individuals do not understand that other people have their own plans, thoughts, and points of view. Furthermore, it appears that they have difficulty understanding other people’s beliefs, attitudes, and emotions.” https://www.autism.com/understanding_theoryofmind

Ken: I would have to say I agree with your statement, and that explanation is valid. It applies to me.

Christina: Let’s talk about empathy.

Ken: Empathy is an emotion. As an aspie, I have behaviours as workarounds for my challenges with emotions.

Christina: But you have emotions… you’re not a robot. In fact I’d say you often over-emote.

Ken: That is correct. However, depending upon the situation and the sensory and emotional confusion, they are often totally on or totally off.

Christina: Inappropriate? For the situation, you mean.

Ken: That is correct. Also, misapplied. For example, most people on the spectrum have binary thoughts. We have yes, no, right, wrong, up, down.

Christina: Yeah. That’s why you have such a hard time with schedules with hard deadlines.

Ken: Yes. A deadline is a promise. Either I keep it or I break it. I either succeed or I fail. And I cannot tolerate personal failure. From the point of the failure on, my day and my performance rapidly degrade.

Christina: No matter the degree of ‘failure’?

Ken: Correct. As I previously mentioned, there is no degree. Either suceed or fail.

Christina: So, let’s get back to the problem. You cannot empathize, but I need to you to. All the time. Daily. Big things, small things.

Ken: My workaround is to act kindly towards you. I draw on my deep moral compass of equity and equality.

Christina: So you don’t feel what I feel—which is “theory of mind”—you respond to the unfairness of the situation, of life. Or whatever.

Ken: Ultimately, I treat people—you—the way that I want to be treated.

Christina: With kindness?

Ken: To be acknowledged, validated, accepted, and understood. So I try to follow those internal guidelines and enact them externally. In other words, to treat others the way I want to be treated. I cannot violate my own ethical and moral codes

Christina: So your workaround for your inability to conventionally empathise is to draw on your deep moral codes.

Ken: Yes.

Christina: That’s a natural workaround.

Ken: Hardwired. Another example is that I cannot stand rudeness in others and I cannot tolerate it in myself—it is against my moral code.

Christina: Ok.

Ken: So, what is or are your workarounds for my challenges with empathy?

Christina: Logic. My logical brain reasons out what’s happening and why you cannot give me, in some moments, the emotionally-aware response I need. I still want it though—crave it, even, sometimes. I’m wired for it. So if the feeling is acute I’ll ask directly for what I need, like a hug or for you just to listen or let me be sad and not say anything or try to fix it.

Ken: And how do I function in those situations when you ask me?

Christina: You almost always instantly do what I ask. I can depend on it. Which reinforces my rather unusual—for me— behaviour, to ask directly for something another kind of man would sense and respond emotionally to—for me—at least to some degree. Lots of men are a bit thick about that stuff just because they’re men.

Ken: I do that because I know that I am black and white and don’t see the grey. So when you make the grey black and white, I then know what to do and how to do it and will walk through hell to give you what you need.

Christina: That shows me you are not a cruel, hard, or cold person by nature. You just have a kind of emotional blindness. Some other men might slough off my needs or trivialize them. Slam the door and go off for a beer (laughs). But you will move mountains to fill my smallest of needs once you know exactly what they are.

Ken: Yes. Because that is the right thing to do. You are doing many things for me, and this is the way I must reciprocate rather than be just a taker in the world. To carry my half of the relationship. It is my responsibility to look after your emotional wellbeing, though I am ill-equipped to do it sometimes. You help me to help us. Anything less would be unacceptable for me. You see value in this relationship and work very hard for its success. How can I in good conscience do any less?

Christina: That is worth a lot to me. It really is. I can make things clear; it’s not a lot to ask, really. I’m used to doing it by now. Well, maybe in the odd stubborn or weak moment I’ll choose to just be upset that you didn’t notice, quietly be sore about it. Resent it even, or feel sorry for myself. But that’s pretty rare now because I know how immature those reactions are. How unkind. You are a gargantuan model of kindness, and I feel crappy if I don’t reciprocate with kindness.  Overall, though, I’d say that I’ve learned to accept your package of actions—kindness, patience, and perseverance— in lieu of conventional empathy, or a so-called sensitive ear.

Ken: I see the value in this relationship is that you are one in a million. Where others in my life have given up or given in, you just keep giving. Because of that, we keep going the extra mile for each other. Our hearts demand it of us.

Christina: Yeah. What can I say to that?!

 

Next post #15 ~ Topic to be determined!

Diablogue #13

 

Helpful Hint: Always endeavor to keep things equal. Work together and continue adopting and adapting 50-50.

 

So, Let’s Diablogue:

 Ken: I’d like to make an addendum to the previous blog about being compelled to say the truth and always self-checking to avoid social mishaps. Most of my workarounds involve self-talk in the form of axioms continuously repeated as self-mantras. My over-arching social workaround in many situations—at least the one that works for me—is this: “There is the truth, and then there is the ‘right’ answer for the situation.” The trick is to know which is which and when to apply each.

Christina: Yes. And that’s hard to know—even I struggle sometimes.

Ken: Before we go on with this post, I wish to explain how we will continue with the blog. My sense in this diablogue so far is that I am falling victim to my Aspie nature of information dissemination and data regurgitation.

Christina: Well, if there was any falling, I fell too! My Aspie trait? (laughs). What do you mean, exactly?

Ken: In the past two posts we have offered a fun test for Aspergers, which I am glad we included. But that led me a little off course in just talking about the diagnostic criteria, which for many people is redundant information.

Christina: And which they can find on the net.

Ken: Correct. We need to return more particularly to demonstrating our very real yet rewarding struggle of adapting to each other and creating new workarounds, constantly reinventing our relationship.

Christina: It’s true. I feel we’ve drifted a little. A part of me likes data too. But I think the strength of this blog is the messy, personal, relational work we do. 

Ken: Absolutely. It is a never-ending process. We also need to address a recent salient comment. We asked several specialists for feedback on the blog, and one replied. He applauded us for our “good intentions by trying to help others.” However, he urged us to avoid a tendency to define the relationship in terms of “one person as having a disability or problem and the other not.” He observed that in some of our blogs, we focus on an Aspie difference, “presenting it as a failure in social interaction and emotional understanding, and the other person trying to understand that deficit and provide corrective strategies.”

Christina: Right. That raised red flags for him about us as a couple, signaling a power imbalance. What happens, he said, is that “one person has the power or authority of knowing the right social behavior and understanding emotions, and the other does not.” That’s a smart observation. It’s an easy mindset to slip into, especially since society at large considers autism to be all–or mostly — negative.  The medical model of needing to ‘fix’ it, and until it’s fixed, the job of us ‘normal’ folk isn’t done. It’s kind of like what  I experienced with my middle son and his deafness. I worked hard to avoid him feeling handicapped. It took a lot of non-debilitating attitudes, words, and actions. It’s sort of the same thing here.

Ken: I wholeheartedly agree. We need to show how each of us has workarounds, not just me. That we are both creating them.

Christina: That’s the truth.

Ken: Therefore, we need to have more of a balanced conversation that is equally relevant and relatable to readers who are both autistic and non-autistic partners. We need to have equal voice because it is truly a 50-50 relationship.

Christina: And that balance is what keeps it alive. And thriving. In my opinion.

Ken: We need to demonstrate the process of encountering a problem and creating and utilizing a workaround that works. Also, to constantly keep tweaking the ones that do not work until they do. We are equally adopting, adapting, and contributing corrective strategies, and we are equally committed to doing so.

Christina: I think this change will mean that we’ll say a lot more about fewer things. Go deeper instead of skipping along from one thing to the next.

Ken: Agreed. We will continue to address the topics from the previous post—autism traits— but in a more personal and equal way. We will focus on how each of us is affected and how each of us has adapted by working together. This will bring us back to our original vision for the blog, for it to be, in part, cathartic. We wanted to use this as a voyage of discovery. To learn and to share.

Christina: I do think we’ve being doing some of that. But it’ll be good to refocus and do it more and better.

 

Diablogue #14: ~ “Both of our workarounds in managing the autism trait of difficulty with empathy and theory of mind.”

Diablogue #12

 

 

Helpful Hint: “If you’ve met one person with autism, you’ve met one person with autism.” ~ Dr. Stephan Shore. There are multiple criteria, each with multiple degrees, that can lead to an infinite number of unique and individual diagnoses.

 

So, let’s diablogue:

Ken: The following list is a excerpt of a much larger list of criteria on which I was surveyed. To mention and address all of the criteria would be exhaustive and prohibitive and would require a blog of its own. From this list I recall from my diagnosis, we will choose 12 to discuss.

1. Motor skills—lurching gait, morning awkwardness
2. Speaking cadence—robotic, monotone, repetitive
3. Difficulty with conversational audio clues— tone of voice
4. Above average to high IQ
5. Difficulty with executive functioning—multi-tasking
6. Lack of reciprocity in communication—doing all the talking
7. Intense focus—ability to stay on task
8. Difficulty making transitions
9. A need for rigid schedules and routines
10. Hyper sensitive to sensory stimuli—sight, sound, touch, taste, smell
11. Eidetic memory—photographic recall
12. Eye contact—difficulty with social applications
13. Difficulty differentiating facial expressions and body language
14. High pattern recognition—visual and auditory
15. Social connections—challenges with making and maintaining
16. Strong sense of justice —rigid, hard-wired moral compass
17. Strong sense of loyalty
18. Difficulty with empathy or theory of mind—understanding and sharing others’ feelings
19. Difficulty with emotions—understanding and expressing
20. Extreme difficulty with ambiguity—black and white thinking
21. Extremely high vocabulary and extremely poor spelling
22. Literal thinking—understanding words literally
23. Inability to infer or guess
24. Compulsive word play and puns—humour, wit, playfulness
25. Socially inappropriate bluntness and truth saying                                                     There are more….

Christina: Wow. Big list.

Ken: True. Yet not definitive.

Christina: Do all autistics show all those traits?

Ken: No. They can have more or less—but according to my specialists, at least 12. Some say all people have at least one or two autistic traits. My diagnosticians told me that it’s not clearly defined, but if I met at least 12 of the multiple criteria I would be considered to be on the autism spectrum.

Christina: Only 12? (laughs) I think you’ve got all of the ones on your list!

Ken: Correct. And more that I cannot immediately recall.

Christina: Ok. So let’s talk about your “magic 12.”

Ken: Those would be the ones that most significantly impact our relationship.

Christina: Ladies’ pick first: Your tendency—which you almost always stuff back now, to be blunt. To say what you really think when it could hurt people’s feelings.

Ken: Correct. In social interactions, the first thing that I think and the first thing I actually say are different…

Christina: (interjecting) But, that’s the same for me… for a lot of people. We don’t blurt out what we are actually thinking either.

Ken: However, I have observed that it is a much more natural and automatic process for non-autistic people. It appears as if you do not think about it, you just do it—you say the appropriate thing. The difference with me is that, good, bad, or ugly, the truth is the truth, and I have a strong urge to state it. For me, I have an uncomfortable physiological response from having to withhold the truth…

Christina (interrupting) What does it feel like?

Ken: I feel a phantom pain of impact, like running into a brick wall. My breath catches, my body heats up, and my heartbeat increases.

Christina: Sounds like an anxiety attack.

Ken: Precisely. It takes everything I have to not act upon my first impulse.

Christina: Every time?

Ken: Every time. To varying degrees.

Christina: Which explains why socializing—even casual chitchat— drains you.

Ken: Absolutely. It is because of that physical reaction. My first impulse is always to speak the truth…

Christina: like, umm… ‘Why do you want to know that?’ or “You have a lot of body piercings,” or “that is not relevant.” …

Ken: (interjecting) Or, “that is not logical; it doesn’t make sense.” And yes, unfortunately you are correct. I used to actually blurt things like that. And I never understood why people reacted the way that they did because it was simply the truth, whether people wanted to acknowledge it or not.

Christina: Now you know that being blunt turns out badly.

Ken: Definitely. I have developed workarounds such as re-wording, softening, or suppressing my thoughts.

Christina: Right. In fact, you are outwardly extremely social! You can talk at length on any topic with anyone. That was, and still is, one of your best qualities! And since I’ve met you and we’ve been working on reciprocity, you are getting to be an even more interesting and enjoyable conversationalist. 

Ken: True. However, that is a learned behaviour which I can manage well only under low stress conditions. I must maintain a diligent awareness and rigid control in order to not trip up or expose myself.

Christina: I regret that it’s so hard on you. And I understand that’s part of the reason you need to rest, be alone, and sleep a lot. And we need to limit our social activities or sometimes separate—I go, you don’t—which is ok with me. So… we’d better get another diagnostic criteria in here or we’ll have a 24-part series! How about your eidetic memory—that’s such a cool word and an even cooler thing.

Ken: Alright. Everything I hear, see, and read, sticks. Like little videos in my brain. Non-spectrum people often have difficulty with this kind of memory. That always puzzled me because for me, it takes effort to forget.

Christina: Whereas I forget everything, immediately, all the time. It’s a pain in the neck. It’s exhausting, trying to remember things.

Ken: Your ease in social situations helps me avoid discomfort and exhaustion, and my eidetic memory does the same for you.

Christina: Beautiful! Let’s start with a third criterion next post, and try to get through more of them.

Ken: Agreed.

 

Next Post: Diablogue #13 ~ “How do you know? ~ Ken’s 12 autism spectrum diagnostic criteria: Part 2”

Diablogue #8

Helpful Hint: In any relationship, and especially one like ours, a sense of humour is essential. We must be able to laugh at ourselves and with others.

 

So, let’s diablogue:

Christina: A few people, one way or another, have suggested that the deficit model—the idea that autistic people have the problem and non-autistic people must naturally take the ‘helping’ role —is leaking into our blog. Like in the way we talk to each other. Or in the topics. It made me think. That’s why I wanted today’s topic: The awesomeness of being a couple like us.

Ken: I wholeheartedly agree. We need to address these points because they are very salient. That being said, I see a great deal—and perhaps more—benefits than deficits to our autistic/non-autistic relationship. Would you concur?

Christina: For sure. Let’s balance the scales. One way it’s awesome having you as a partner is how direct we can be with each other. We can say what we mean without game playing, innuendo, or hidden meanings. That makes our relationship upfront, transparent, and strong.

Ken: Agreed. However, in our interactions, others may see you as being pushy or bossy. As a matter of fact, when we first starting dating, you informed me, jokingly, “I can be strong minded about things!” At the time, I did not know why you said that, but I have never considered you pushy. Rather, you are direct.

Christina: (laughs) Works for me.

Ken: I do not have to guess at what you need or want. As for your “bossiness,” the reason that is an incorrect assessment by others is because if you tell me something that I really do not agree with, I stand my ground and state my opinion. And you will listen to it and we make a judgement based on that. A bossy person does not do that; they shout commands and expect to be obeyed.

Christina: Well, uh, who wouldn’t like being obeyed?! (laughter) But I think, umm…

Ken: (carrying on, unfazed) Being on the spectrum, two-way directness is essential to avoid making mistakes in the relationship because most of us do not infer, have difficulty intuiting, and refuse to guess. And we cannot decipher grey. So one of the things that attracted me to you is that you can handle direct and you can deliver direct—be direct. And that is such a relief. It is awesome.

Christina: Yup. Awesome. And it saves so much time. We can pack a lot into a conversation by cutting out social padding.

Ken: Yes. However, if need be—for example, if I disagree with something—then there is a discussion. You discuss and I listen. And like most men, I just do it or go along with it. Good men do not have to swing our clubs around and thump our chests to prove we are men. Most everyday things are small; it does not matter which way we do it—the results are the same. However, the critical decisions are never dictatorial; they are solved through a balanced alliance.

Christina: Right. Moving on… another awesome thing about being married to an Aspie is that your different viewpoint on things often makes me laugh. It’s delightful—even, or maybe especially— when it’s incidental or accidental. Your quirky ways of seeing things, your sharp right-hand turns in thinking, your automatic word-plays, crack me up—and they happen many times a day. I know that when I’m old you will always make me laugh. That’s precious.

Ken: Thank you, this is a good thing to know. The advantage for me is that it works and I do not have to work at it. It is easy for me, like autopilot, and you take it with ease. As a matter of fact, you seem to need it. It is important to be able to address your needs.

Christina: Absolutely. It’s stress relief. Thank you.

Ken: For both of us. Thank you.

Christina: Ok. Another awesome thing. You are hyper kind. I can absolutely count on that as your response to ANY situation. That makes me kinder every day out in the world, and it makes us kinder to each other, moment by moment. For me, our autistic/non-autistic alliance is like a twisting vine growing out of kindness-saturated soil. The Dalai Lama said that our only role on this planet is to help others along. To be kind. I believe it. I try to live it every day. Being in this relationship helps a lot.

Ken: For me, kindness and unkindness are behaviours. Perhaps the reason that we are kind is that we are often victims of unkindness, and so I never want to behave unkindly to others. We are compelled to be inclusive because we are excluded a lot. Being inclusive is usually interpreted by the world as kindness.

Christina: Yes.

Ken: What you do not realize is that in your reciprocal kindness, you are being inclusive instead of exclusive with me. There is mutual kindness; it is a balance.

Christina: Balance is good. Another example of the awesomeness of being with you is that I can always count on you to be there. In all ways. That matters. A lot.

Ken: You deserve no less. And you make me want to continue on this path.

Christina: We’re going to have to wrap this up.

Ken: Correct. However, to end, I wish to emphasize that what keeps us together, first and foremost, is our shared core values.

Christina: That’s what keeps all couples together—or what should. Everything else is small stuff.

Ken: There are, of course, many more awesome aspects to each of us. However, we are limited by space and time.

Christina: I think we need more blog time on this awesomeness track. Isn’t that awesome?!

Ken: Agreed. Shall we do Part 2 next post?

Christina: Absolutely.

 

Next post: Dialogue #9- “Awesome Aspects of an Autistic/Non-Autistic Alliance, Part 2”