Aspies For Freedom

How the "NT" stuff works is explored brilliantly in the book "Social Intelligence" by Goleman:

http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/

Ellen and Hrick's mom, where are you?

Max the Bear should also be here.

hmm...good question.  Depends on the mood and situation, I guess.  Some days I feel my inner world is rich and complex, other times that it's dull and lacking.

No.  Much of the time, we're barely aware that there even was a message transmitted, or that we communicated anything "indirectly."  We take it for granted, except when it's miscommunicated.  Other times, certain nonverbal cues are memorized like words, with clear, obvious, conscious meanings that register as quickly as if a word was said to us.  I know when my older sister looks at me a certain way that I made a faux pas and should avoid doing what I just did before she gave me that look.

Because it doesn't bother us so much not to.

I don't even kiss my significant other.  But I'm an exception when it comes to a lot of that physical affection stuff.  When I was really young i had an almost pseudo-autistic-like aversion to being touched and held by people, except for my grandfather's big bear hugs.  I also had a very high pain tolerance.  But I was never bothered by clothing tags and the like, though, nor did I seek out deep pressure from sources other than my grandfather.  So it's not clear whether I was actually a tiny bit tactile defensive or if it was something rather different.  I'm okay with hugs now, but learning about germs in spit in second grade forever turned me off to kissing, which isn't even comforting the way a wanted hug can be.

Some NT people learn to kiss non-SO's as a cultural or subcultural or family tradition. The French, for instance, traditionally greet friends by kissing them lightly on each cheek.  Some parents in America might pass kissing on to their kids, as they had learned it from their own parents and families and liked it.

[/quote]

Hmm, if that's the case, if eye contact is not used as a tool for sending messages nonverbally, then what is it used for?

From inference I wonder if you're suggesting that body language is the better tool for sending messages without speaking, for indeed, autistics are also known not to broadcast body language the same way NTs do.

When you look into another person's eyes, is that some way of sending telepathic messages across the remaining space?
I don't really look into peoples' eyes, I mainly just look in their general direction, the mouth is the best spot because that's where the words are coming from. I thought it was to show that you are paying attention to the person talking.

People also use eyes as part of facial expression, like what Couldbecousin was saying. And I believe you can get people's attention by looking in their eyes. This I don't really understand, but it works. I work at a deli, and when I am ready to serve someone, all I have to do is look at them and they know it's their turn rather then me just looking in their general direction. And people do this weird eye brow thing which I know means 'come here, or attention over here'.

Don't trust me ont this stuff, though!

Why do you stand so close to each other?

Well, we don't really. I believe there is this concept of 'personal space'. This space is the distance around you that another person should not enter. The space becomes smaller the more you know the person. So if speaking to a stranger, there should be a good gap between you. But enough so you can hear the other person. But if you are talking to your boy/girlfriend you can get right in there. But the bad thing is you 'just gotta know'. So you can't get your tape measure out and say 'okay, we must stand 30 centimetres apart'.

Or kiss people who aren't your significant other?
Do you mean a quick peck on the check? This depends on culture. I am european so it's just a common greeting, like a hand shake.

Or do you mean making out? I don't really know, I'm asexual, but i guess it turns people on? Bleh, I don't know.

I wasn't denying that it's used as a way of sending non-verbal messages, just that from our perspective, it doesn't "feel" like some kind of psychic transmission.  Eye contact itself is used to tell the person, "I am paying attention to you."  The details of it - where you stare and how long - can send other messages, like whether the person staring at you sees him/herself as superior or inferior to you, or sees you as sexy.  But most of the time, our awareness of it is dim, unless it sends a very strong message like "I'm more powerful than you" or "You're sexy."  So the sense of psychic transmissions through eye contact is not a huge part of what it "feels like" to be an NT.  Ordinary eye contact is usually just interpreted subliminally as "I'm paying attention to you," and only its absence is noticed.

Eye contact is only a small part of overall body language, and yes, there's a lot more potential for messages we are aware of sending and receiving in body language (although there's also a lot of potential for more subliminal stuff too).  I have noticed that, despite his difficulty with interpretation of body language in many cases, my AS bf does send out quite a lot of nonverbal signals.  He smiles, he coos or gestures in certain ways when he wants hugs, he raises his hand to say "stop walking or talking," and so on.  He says he probably learned the hand-raising thing from his parents.  So he can "write" - and apparently read, for having been able to learn it - at least a little body language.  And facial expressions are innate - anybody with working facial muscles can do them, pretty much.

The example I gave of my sister's "faux pas look" is just as much body language as it is eye contact: it's not just that she's looking at me, it's that she turned to look at me when she was not looking at me, and also a bit of an angry facial expression.  A lot more than just the fact of eyes on me are involved there.  Even eye contact is more than just eye contact, if you know what I mean.  It's the position of the eyes and the adjustment of the eyebrows and the degree to which the eyes are open and the pupils are dilated or constricted.  And like I said, we're not aware of most of it most of the time, unless the message being sent is very strong, sudden, or unexpected.

The social brain

KATE FILLION | Oct 26, 2006

Eleven years ago, Daniel Goleman spawned a mini-industry with an international bestseller called Emotional Intelligence, in which he argued that being aware of our feelings, and being able to manage them, may be even more important to success than a high IQ. A vast array of brain and behavioural research provided a scientific imprimatur for what might otherwise have been considered a fuzzy, feel-good manifesto, which was in short order followed by emotional intelligence tests and how-to courses designed to boost the EQ of everyone from tycoons to schoolchildren. "It took me by surprise, to be frank," says Goleman, now 60. "I simply didn't expect there would a) be that much interest in the book or b) that people would be able to make money on the basis of these ideas."

Goleman, too, made money, enough to quit his day job as a science reporter at the New York Times and focus full-time on writing books such as Working with Emotional Intelligence and The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace. But at last, he says, he has written "a true sequel": Social Intelligence. Yes, there's yet another kind of intelligence we need, and it involves empathy and social skills -- the interpersonal aspects of emotional intelligence, in other words. Understanding our own feelings is not enough. We need to understand everyone else's, too, because, he writes, other people's emotions have a direct effect on our own bodies and brains.


Scientists have discovered that our interactions don't just shape our experiences. They actually alter our biology. Fulfilling relationships promote good health, while bad ones "can act like slow poison in our bodies." Neuroscientists have discovered something even scarier, for anyone trapped in a miserable relationship: long-standing relationships can actually change our brains. It's called "neuroplasticity" and, Goleman writes, it means that "repeated experiences sculpt the shape, size, and number of neurons and their synaptic connections." Or, to put it another way: your rotten husband isn't just wrecking your life -- he's actually wrecking your brain, too.

Key, apparently, is a recently discovered class of brain cells called mirror neurons, that Goleman likens to a form of Wi-Fi in our brains. Mirror neurons "tune into the brain of the person you're with, and create in you the internal state of that person." They are not only the basis of empathy and social skills, but explain why emotions are contagious, why we can "catch" someone else's bad mood even if we don't share his reasons for being angry. "Our emotions are experienced not merely by ourselves in isolation but also by those around us," Goleman writes, and wheels out both soft and hard science to prove it.

Mirror neurons are part of the "social brain," which operates unconsciously and very rapidly during any encounter. The good news is that humans are hard-wired for empathy and kindness; the bad news is that modern life tends to muffle our innate tendency to respond to others' distress. In fact, technology, particularly computers, promotes our ability to distress others, because, Goleman said, "There is no channel online for the social brain to read what it would in a face-to-face interaction. We don't unconsciously pick up the cues that tell us how someone is reacting to us, and thereby adjust what we say and do next. The social brain is blind online, and the result is flaming, where people who are upset or agitated or grumpy type out a message and hit send and the person who receives it takes it as rude or brusque or somehow inappropriate."

But despite technological obstacles, social intelligence can, Goleman believes, be learned, even by those who have neurological conditions such as Asperger's syndrome or social deficits such as dyssemia (symptoms include standing too close to another person when talking). And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that understanding how we are wired to connect is likely just the beginning. Tests to measure our social intelligence and how-to manuals surely cannot be far behind.

The Power of Two

By Wray Herbert
One of the more memorable minor characters on the TV sitcom Seinfeld was Aaron, also known as the Close Talker. One of Elaine’s many boyfriends, Aaron had the discomfiting habit of putting his face just inches from the face of whoever he was talking to, even complete strangers. He was also friendly to a fault, inviting Jerry’s elderly parents along on dates, to museums, My Fair Lady, even for a romantic dinner. Elaine, confused, finally asks him, “You had fun with Mr. and Mrs. Seinfeld?” He replies: “Yeah. They bought me a Coke.”

It’s hard to process someone like Aaron. He’s not mean, or stupid, or uncultured, or anything else obviously objectionable. He’s just vaguely “off,” and it’s uncomfortable for everyone. It’s not just that he doesn’t know the rules, which he doesn't; he really cannot feel the embarrassment of those around him. He should be squirming, but he's not.

A brain scan would likely reveal that Aaron's "mirror neurons" are out of whack. Mirror neurons are what make us grimace when we see someone else grimace, and by grimacing allow us to actually experience the other's discomfort in intimate connection. Such neurological connection is the foundation of primal empathy, and empathy, according to psychologist and journalist Daniel Goleman, is one of the fundamental building blocks of social awareness and social intelligence. In his new book, called Social Intelligence to echo his 1995 bestseller Emotional Intelligence, Goleman inventories the traits that make some people savvy about relationships, and others like Aaron decidedly not. In addition to gut-level empathy, socially intelligent people demonstrate such traits as “attunement.” Attunement is listening—but really listening, with full attention. (Try it. It's hard.) Another trait is “synchrony,” which means interacting effortlessly without words. You often see this in couples who have been together forever. Socially intelligent people also--this is important--demonstrate concern; they care about others’ needs and act in caring ways. Concern is essential to Goleman’s model of social intelligence, because it rules out clever grifters and evil social geniuses.

The notion of social intelligence is not new, as Goleman is quick to concede. Indeed, he credits Edward Thorndike, the Columbia University psychologist who in the 1920s proposed a similar concept in a popular magazine article. Thorndike’s theory never gained traction, however, because it was impossible to prove that social intelligence was anything more that general intelligence, or IQ, applied to relationships. So the idea withered and disappeared.

Goleman believes it’s time to resurrect Thorndike’s basic concept, with important scientific embellishments. Dramatic advances in neuroscience over the last many decades have made it finally possible to locate skills like empathy and synchrony in the brain’s neurons and biochemistry, and to show that social smarts are indeed a unique form of intelligence--unrelated to, say, a talent for trigonometry. One major advance in psychology, for example, is the idea of the brain as a dual processor, with deliberate, logical powers (what Goleman calls the brain’s “high road”) located in one neural region; and rapid, intuitive powers (the “low road”) in another. Where traditional IQ has entirely to do with formal “high road” processing, many of the building blocks of social intelligence are of the intuitive variety, taking place at breakneck speed outside of language and awareness.

Consider just one example of such sizzling brain work: our remarkable ability to detect emotions like fear and anger and kindness in people’s faces almost instantaneously. Goleman describes the massive “spindle cells” that make the brain capable of such snap judgments. Spindle cells are a relatively new discovery, and we appear to be the only mammals who have them.
*NOTE: recently they've found that at least some species of whales have them*
They are rich in neurotransmitters like serotonin, dopamine and vasopressin—chemicals that are crucial to bonding with others, and to moods, pleasure, and love. Mirror neurons are another recent discovery that bolsters the idea of a discrete and potent social intelligence, orchestrated in our axons and synapses. Such advances in “social neuroscience” lie at the core of Goleman’s insightful analysis of social intelligence.

As with IQ, social intelligence forms a bell curve, with most of us clustered in the large, average center, and fewer and fewer at the extremes. At one extreme are people whose low road brain is disabled, and whose lives are purely rational and deliberate. At the other extreme are people who can’t read a roadmap, but who have extraordinary empathy and sensitivity to others’ needs. (In a perfect world these people end up working at the DMV.) In the vast majority of us, though, the brain’s high and low roads are acting in neurological concert, creating a mix of deliberate decisionmaking and automatic, effortless behavior.

Sometime the mix is optimal, but oftentimes it’s not. Our impulsive brain sometimes rules where we should be more thoughtful, or we second-guess our emotional brain’s best snap judgments. The results can range from unhappy marriages to corrosive racism, even genocide. Goleman’s ultimate goal--beyond the scope of this
volume--is to hone the social skills of those of us not in the genius range. Since the publication of Emotional Intelligence, a number of schools have instituted curricula to train students in such skills as empathy, self-awareness and self-management, with demonstrable success in reducing problem behaviors like bullying and harassment. The same kind of training could presumably be designed for social intelligence as well.

I want to call this book revolutionary, but it's more like profoundly obvious. We all know the mystery of real rapport, and body memories, and what it means to be in or out of sync. Such connection goes on all the time. What’s novel here is the accumulating and convincing evidence that our brains have been deep-wired over eons for such "I-you" connections. Even without knowing it, we are making intimate brain-to-brain linkups with another, connections that literally leave two brains altered, anatomically and chemically. But Aaron obviously had it wrong: You can't get close by talking close. Real social intelligence has more to do with listening close.

That's funny, I got a strong impression that you had AS, nervous_neuron.  You seem stereotypical in a lot of ways, and yet here you confirm NTism.

I wonder if there's some overlap between Asperger's and the "eccentric introvert," possibly.

Funny, I can neither read a roadmap nor show a lot of empathy to other's needs.

Yep, I'm an NT. Sort of. Though I'm not your average everyday sort of NT. I do indeed have the stereotypical interests and obsessions. I also have social anxiety, so I don't really knwo how good or bad my social skills *really* are since I'm always worried that they are bad. So, I guess I'm a nerd. I may prefer things like neuroscience and gaming over being social (but now at uni, I can easily mix those things with being social) sure sure. And yes, I'm pretty much an eccentric person. There are quiet a few people like me that you might notice... the bunch of people playing D&D in the corner, your scientist who gets very excited about their very specific research area, the gamers and the introvert who needs their alone time. I often wonder those who diagnose themselves as aspie might just be these things. Or maybe these people are really aspies. Who knows?

That's what's interesting about the autistic spectrum. People may be thinking about who is 'on the spectrum', but perhaps everyone is to varying degrees, like the autistic quotent (AQ) might suggest. Some online tests class me as aspie and some don't (my therapist does not, so I'm going by that) and it depends what specific questions they ask, and many are likely to include a nerdy socially anxious person.

I certainly have many Aspie traits, but the big "NT" divergence for me lies in this area -- theory of mind, reading people, getting a very quick and accurate sense of people's feelings and motives. And I think it's something we're essentially born with, but the "reading people" system in the brain continues to develop for many years, so certain environments and circumstances through childhood and adolescence may promote (or thwart) that development.

When I was three years old, I asked my mother, "Does your face ever feel the way somebody else looks?" She told me not to say things like that; people would think I was crazy.

But what I had become aware of, on a child's level, was that when I saw people's moods and feelings show in their faces,  my own face mirrored them -- not necessarily externally, but internally -- that I recognized their feelings in myself, and in some way I felt what they were feeling. Empathy. A neurological connection between the brains of two people. I found it difficult to explain or express both then and now.

When I read "Social Intelligence" this was explained in terms of spindle cells and mirror neurons. But to me as a three year old, it was just a feeling inside my own face, reflecting the emotional state of people I saw.

Same here, although I do stim and have some other autistic traits. But my therapist doesn't think I'm autistic because I never run into problems (other than social isolation). All the online tests suggest I have AS.

Unfortunately, as an NT I can't be of much help because I avoid eye contact and stuff, and I'm not incredibly good at reading facial expressions I think.

Well here's what I can offer you:  Just from my time on AFF (6 months now), I can count--for certain--at least 10 folks who said they self-diagnosed first, and ended up with an Asperger's diagnosis.  I am including folks in this who had friends/acquaintances suggest the possibility of Asperger's, however.

With me, I had a few different folks online (in other forums) suggest that the problems I wrote about could be related to Asperger's, so that's how I came to the self-DX.  I didn't "quickly accept it" though, I methodically looked through the research available--DSM entry, articles, Aspie tests--before reaching "strong possibility that I have AS."

On the other hand, I can count about 7 or so Self-DX folks who have been denied diagnosis, only to receive ADD/Avoidant/Social Phobic type DXes.

But then there have also been some who were repeatedly denied DX, only to eventually find a diagnostician who did place them on the spectrum.

For these reasons and more, I have an issue with the "Asperger package of Math, Science, and Languages."  To be quite frank and honest, logically there is no reason to think that diagnosticians are not swayed by "the Asperger package."

Those who don't have it may be somewhat less likely to receive DX, and this point aggravates me to no end.

Anyway.. that's how I see it.  I may be wrong, of course.

If we could figure that out, things would be better for so many autistics.  How 'bout the NTs (as a whole) work on that a little bit more.

Tolerance is the key to progress.