I like this approach. “funny meme” aside, I think it is a good way of showing how much a certain language can affect how other people think and feel about a subject. Just read it THAT way and “being neurotypical” suddenly sounds like a disorder that isn’t fully compatible with the public, doesn’t it?
We live in a world that isn’t exactly kind to people on the spectrum. It is loud, flashy, hectic, overwhelming, unrewarding but you’re still expected to work like a cog in a machine, despite having fewer and fewer places where you’d actually “fit in” without grinding gears, and whenever there is some sort of public talk about that topic, it always, always sounds like the affected person is the problem and personally responsible for fixing themselves, when a no small part of “not fitting in” is due to society itself. Maybe a change in language is due to remove that stigma.
Most people wouldn’t just assume a random reason. They might assume there is a reason, and they would be correct even if that reason is “just dont feel like it”, which is a perfectly valid reason.
Furthermore, what you’re describing is not “reading into”, its “drawing likely inferences based on evidence and observation” and it’s literally the foundation of every piece of knowledge we currently possess.
What you’re objecting to is called “thinking”.
An example of what you’re trying to describe would be if person A said “I can’t hang out tonight, I’m busy” and the person B thinks “they’re just saying that to be nice, they actually hate me” when really person A is actually just busy. Person B is “reading into” person A’s response. Which ties back into my previous point about what you’re actually objecting to, which is people assuming someone is lying when there’s nothing to suggest dishonesty.
All your examples are exactly what I am talking about (assuming) but then you follow it up with telling me what I really mean.
No, my example had nothing for them to use for experience and context. On fact, they did not even need to assume those details in the first place because the reason is not really important or I would have volunteered it. I would have also provided it if they asked!
But overexplaining the reasoning for things being a common trait for autistic and ADHD people is likely caused by trying to head off misunderstandings by people who just assume things and not listening when told the real reason. Heck, I often feel defensive with some people because the whole conversation is just trying to correct their assumptions so we can focus on what was actually said.
“whole conversation is just trying to correct their assumptions so we can focus on what was actually said.”
Please read this over and over until you understand why its so hilariously ironic that you just said that.
What was “actually said” is that inferring information from people’s statements is a bad thing, which is ridiculous, and the exact statement I’m attempting to address. Everyone in this thread assumes I’m saying something else, and that I am somehow attacking them rather than engaging in a discussion.
Imagine if every conversation had to contain every single explicit detail of what’s being discussed, imagine being completely unwilling and unable to form a conclusion based on information provided to you. That would be awful. This leads me to believe that this is not actually what OP intended, and upon further discussion they revealed what they actually have a problem with is people jumping to incorrect conclusions based on insufficient evidence. A sentiment with which I agree entirely, but which is not equivalent to the wording of what was, as you put it, actually said.
Most people wouldn’t just assume a random reason.
And yet, I’ve experienced people doing exactly this quite often.
An example of what you’re trying to describe would be if person A said “I can’t hang out tonight, I’m busy” and the person B thinks “they’re just saying that to be nice, they actually hate me” when really person A is actually just busy. Person B is “reading into” person A’s response.
Yes. Exactly. See, you get it.
Which ties back into my previous point about what you’re actually objecting to, which is people assuming someone is lying when there’s nothing to suggest dishonesty.
Nope; I take it back. You’re still lost.
