Edit: A few people have interpreted the title as serious, so I wanna clarify that it was meant as a sarcastic joke about how little sense the neurotypical world makes to me, but it is still legitimately me asking for help understanding said neurotypical world.
Was having a conversation with a friend today about why I seem unapproachable to people online. Apparently it’s for 2 reasons.
One is that I say “K.” all the time, as a short way of saying okay. She pointed out that most people find this rude and offensive. This kinda baffled me, because like why? She explained that like, if somebody were to give a long emotional speech and I just responded “K.” that would be offensive. That confounds me. So it’s rude in one context, and neurotypicals have decided to be offended by it in all contexts? But the reason it’s rude is what confuses me more. Apparently it’s considered lazy because you could have just typed out the word, but like, that applies to all text speech and nobody’s mad about people shortening those words.
But it got more confusing when she explained the second reason, which is that I end all of my sentences with proper punctuation, which she said “makes people feel like I’m done with the conversation and not interested.” But just a second ago improper grammar was rude, and now proper grammar is rude instead.
It baffles me. You can’t just use proper or improper grammar. Use too much improper grammar and you’re lazy and rude. Use too little and you’re also rude. But you can’t just use any improper grammar, you have to use the very specific subset of improper grammar that’s been deemed acceptable and not lazy (even though it’s exactly as lazy as what they do consider lazy.)
To be clear, I’m not bitter, and I’m definitely gonna adjust my behavior to hopefully seem a little less rude to people. I think that’s just a nice thing to do. I just find the neurotypical mind utterly fascinating. I don’t think they even realize how many contradictions exist in the social rules they all so easily accept.
There are no official rules, we NT just kinda feel it, like a sixth sense and so because we are the majority and we share this ability no one is even aware of it consciously. How can you describe a sight to a blind person? It’s difficult at best and impossible at worst. It’s like an instinct. We can describe it logically but it will always be imperfect and not feasible at times
I hope I won’t be too long on the topic. This is an historical question.
Why it’s like this, why are NTs deciding for us? It began in the Renaissance period with René Descartes. He was a philosophe and saw the human body as a machine. He wrote about this vision of the human. Each organ, muscle, bones are a piece of the machine. He did a direct comparison between the human and the material.
Later in the first half of the 19th century, an astronomer, and statistician had the idea to use statistics for human. Prior, statistic were in majority an instrument used for astronomy. Adolphe Quételet studied Scottish soldiers to make statistics of the human. He went further and did not only statistics on the body. He did statistics about injuries, body, and a lot more. With all of this, Quételet invented the average person. Without statistics, you can’t have an average person. This idea is important for the following. It’s also the key idea at the beginning of eugenic.
Someone was very interested in this topic. At the point, he coined the word “eugenic” itself. Francis Galton was the half-cousin of Charles Darwin. He came from a wealthy family and really like the work of his half-cousin on evolution. But, Galton wanted to apply it to society. He was also inspired by the concept of the average person of Quételet. Galton diverges of both of his predecessors. For Galton, the average person was not the person in the middle. No, it was the person at the bottom. There is a shift down compared to Quételet.
The poorer, the people without education, disabled, slaves, race shouldn’t be considered with Galton. There were just this average for the one able to work and earn what they need to survive. The others were not even at the bottom of the social ladder.
People with education, wealthy people, were of course at the top of this ladder. Galton also believed in birth control based on the assumption of the categorization of the human. Wealthy should reproduce as their genetic was better.
On this base, Galton developed a lot of theories that we still use nowadays, and in particular in psychology and psychiatry. But, his ideas in pathology survived.
More general, some of his ideas and theories are still around. Eugenic was very popular at the beginning of the 20th century – Galton began his work at the second half of the 19th century. People founded during this time eugenic society, university cursus, etc.
With WWII, eugenic fall in disgrace. People working in the field made a shift in their career. They went to psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, sociology, anthropology…
In the 50s and later in the 60s and 70s, a new movement emerged with anti-psychiatry. In this ideology, you will find many points of view. They had and have in common that we should not intern people that aren’t the average person, in other words the norm. Yes, the average person of Galton became a norm. If people are disabled, they don’t produce anything and aren’t included in the norm. They interned these unproductive people. Some went against it.
But, in one side of anti-psychiatry, you had people who think that people with psyachiatric issues were faking it. The idea is that people are lazy and invented their illness, condition, difference to do nothing. These people in anti-psychiatry wanted to close the asylums, so people will have to work. Spoiler alert: It didn’t work, and people ended on the street or in jail.
But, all these people thinking people were lazy were in the normal at least. This scheme continued to today, and we end with NTs in charge of deciding…
I can only recommend the read of the book “Empire of Normality; Neurodiversity and Capitalism”, by Robert Chapman.
As far as I know, I am neurotypical, so mind that when reading my comment.
Regarding the title of your question:
Because neurotypicals are the majority of people. As usual, majorities set norms and actively or passively decide upon common concepts like ethical or societal rules.
Regarding the issue you described:
Even though it might seem exhausting, I think it’s important to see people – regardless whether neurotypical or not – not as a homogeneous mass but as a highly variable mixture.
Sure, even then there are common rules like don’t punch people. But those are the broad and general ground rules.
Then, there are the nuances, which can be highly individual.
In your example, regarding the punctuation, use of grammar as well as verbosity of replies, I would react completely different than your friend. I wouldn’t mind any of those things, which seemed rude to her. Okay, maybe I would feel like I weren’t given the attention I hoped for if, after pouring my heart out, I just get a simple “K.” as response. That would make me sad, because I was hoping for compassion and a dialouge dealing with the issue.
But apart from such things, that would probably be totally fine for me.
One behaviour and two very different reactions due to two different people.
As such nuances are often individual, it’s probably best to explore what kind of behaviour the other person would feel comfortable with and with which behaviour they don’t. Repeat that process with everyone in your life, who you would also like to keep relations to.
That’s also related to a thing known as role-behaviour in psychology, which also applies to neurotypicals. When I talk to my superior at work, I behave differently than when I am at home with my wife. Then, I also behave differently with my friends. And among the friends, I learned enough about some, to know what and how I can say something to them and from which topics or phrasings it’s probably best to steer away.
That’s good advice, but it’s also worth noting that my initial strategy was to try to hold of on saying anything at all that could be offensive until I learned what’s okay and what’s not, but that too ended up offending some people. The reason being that I would get close to people, but they would get closer to me faster than I was getting closer to them due to me still being overly cautious and trying to find the proper things I was allowed to say and do with them. That’s partially what this is about. Trying to find the starting line so I know what’s not gonna drive people away immediately.
For instance, while it’s true a lot of people won’t be offended by “K.” or proper punctuation, I feel like in most casual contexts, people are much less likely to be offended if I don’t do those things, which gives me time to get closer to people and learn more instead of driving a sizable portion away right off the bat.
Another piece of advice this friend gave me was to ask more questions. I always knew that was a good thing to do, but I was always worried people would see me as nosy if I asked the wrong ones. I learned from her that people are generally more happy by me showing interest than they’d be upset by me accidentally asking something personal.
That and the advice I’ve gotten in this thread has been really helpful so far. Already people are being a lot friendlier toward me, although it’s gonna take a bit to change the general public opinion of me.
You already have a bunch of discussion on how “k” can seem dismissive as it’s the lowest effort affirmative reply possible, but I’d add that “K.” can seem worse, because it’s the same message with more effort - if everyone has understood/assumed that “k” is the lowest effort/energy communication, capitalizing and punctuating it indicates that you do have the extra energy, you just choose to spend that energy on emphasizing the dismissive response, rather than on using a different one. It has the same connotations, but more emphatically and more intentionally (or, that’s how it comes across).
I also think in general taking the effort to use correct punctuation and grammar seems more formal, less natural, and hence more emotionally distant. It can also seem more emphatic or assertive, like by using more correct grammar/punctuation than everyone else, you’re positioning yourself as generally more “correct” than they are. The combination of emotional distance and implicit high ground can come across as a bit hostile, or at least standoffish.
The reverse could also be true - if you were in a culture or context where everyone else was using correct grammar and punctuation and you weren’t, it could come across as implying that they’re not worth caring about. For example, in work communications, or maybe when talking to members of an older generation or people from a country that uses more formal language.
In general, probably the smoothest approach would be to observe how others in a given circle communicate, and try to match their level of formality. I guess this is basically masking. If you’d rather not change how you communicate to fit in, you could explicitly discuss this with people - essentially say, “hey, I’m aware that my natural style is different from yours, and I want to be clear that this isn’t indicative of my emotional state, or attitude to you, or any intended tone, this is just my natural baseline”.
At the end of the day the options will always be a) mask, b) be awkwardly explicit, or c) get used to being misunderstood.
… this was really meant to be a quick addition about the difference between “k” and “K.” but sometimes my comments turn into essays for no good reason. Hope something in here was useful anyway.
K
