Social Skills

I think social psychology and human relations are super-interesting, so I have picked up a variety of techniques. Most of these tips are probably obvious to most people; they just do it by accident without even thinking about it! But some of us missed the memo. People with certain disorders or autism tend to be particularly untalented at figuring this stuff out without instruction, but with the way neurotypical folks seem to absorb social conventions by accident while growing up, they can easily end up with problems if they grew up around people with unsuitable social habits.

Assertiveness tips:

Seeing as how I'm debilitatingly unassertive, it might seem like a terrible idea to get advice on the matter from me, but I've noticed that there are actually people out there that are worse about this than me, so here are the tips I've found.

This is a topic a lot of people realize they need help on, so you can also search for "assertiveness tips" or "how to be assertive" to get some more information.

Respect yourself!

What is assertiveness? It's being confident and direct in claiming your rights or putting forth your views.

The main prerequisite to assertiveness is the belief that it's okay to be nice to yourself. Sure, you want to be nice to people, but you're also a person. You don't have to do EVERYTHING other people request of you, even if their requests are reasonable.

It may help to consider reciprocity, i.e. how often other people help you. I mean, I think an ideal community is one where everyone is always helping each other out, but consider whether you actually live in that kind of community. (You may have that kind of relationship with a few people but not others.) I know someone who acts like she lives in an omni-helpful world when she totally doesn't. She's always asking other people for favors, but they never pan out. Meanwhile, she runs herself ragged doing everything for everybody. It might be okay to act like that if you have people who are going to help you out, but if you live in an "every man for himself" setting, you need to help yourself first, then help others after your own needs are met.  I'm not saying you should only help people who help you, just that the help you give out shouldn't too far exceed the help you receive.

Don't be hostile

Assertiveness is not aggressiveness.

When someone makes a request of you, your options are not limited to (1) do whatever they ask even when it makes you feel all bitter and martyred (2) disparage their character for having the nerve to make that request. Try to say no without turning it into a fight. If you're mean about it, the requester is guaranteed to feel defenses or resentful. They might have argued anyway (even though that would be terribly rude of them), but they're a lot more likely to argue now that they want to convince you that you weren't justified in treating them that way.

Even if you give in and do what they want after all, they're not going to feel very grateful if you were a jerk about it.

Say No and Shut Up

If you decline someone's request or unsolicited advice, resist the urge to give a long-winded justification for your choice. That just invites argument. The following two tips give you advice on what to say instead.

"Pass the Bean Dip" technique

This tip applies mostly to unsolicited advice. I'm pretty sure it originally came from a parenting blog, or maybe a homeschooling blog. The name was probably inspired by family gatherings, which are an unholy chaotic pit of unsolicited advice, but such gatherings are likely to contain food and condiments that can be cleverly used to distract your enemies! The idea is that you respond briefly to whatever someone said to you, then immediately change the subject. Don't actually say bean dip if there's no bean dip for them to pass to you.

For example:

"You should just feed the baby formula. She would sleep better that way."

"Thanks for your concern. Can you pass the bean dip?"

Broken Record technique

This is a technique where another person is arguing with you and you need to stand your ground. You keep saying essentially the same thing until the take the hint and give up.

Fogging

Fogging is an assertiveness technique for dealing with obnoxious criticism. You express agreement with the true parts of what the person is saying, e.g. if they say, "I see you're dressed the same trashy way you always are," you can say, "Yes, I'm dressed the way I normally dress."

I don't have any practice on this technique, because most people where I live are more subtle with their hostility, but I wanted to mention it just in case you need it.

What situations trip you up?

If there are certain situations where you have trouble being assertive, try to avoid having that situation overlap with situations where you need to be particularly assertive. 

For example, I have a hard time with verbal communication, especially face-to-face, especially if I didn't get any advanced warning to prepare for the  conversation... so I'll agree to all kinds of ridiculous things if I'm not careful. My "escape plan" is to say something wishy-washy about how I'll have to give them an answer later.

Amiability tips:

Here are tips on how to avoid appearing argumentative, hostile, or conceited. This list assumes you aren't the kind of person who likes creating drama.

Non-Accusatory Complaint

If you need to lodge a complaint so that a problem will be corrected, you can do it in a way that avoids criticizing the receiver of the complaint. Putting forth an accusatory complaint will make the receiver defensive, and if it turns out that the problem wasn't the receiver's fault, it will make you look silly and make the receiver feel a false sense of "problem solved."

For example, suppose you're taking a class and your teacher graded your test incorrectly:
Bad: "Hey, you graded my test wrong."
Good: "Hey, there's an error with how my test was graded."

About Opinions

"Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one, and nobody thinks theirs stinks." -- popular saying

Just because someone says something about a topic on which you have an opinion doesn't necessarily mean you have to give your opinion. If it's just small talk or otherwise non-important, you might consider keeping it to yourself, especially if your opinion is contradictory or negative to what was already said.

However, if someone someone asked for your opinion or you want to have a polite debate or discussion, try to state a fact about yourself instead of giving your opinion. For example, you can say, "I didn't like that movie," instead of, "That was a bad movie."

Use "I Language"

"I Language" is relationship-counselor-speak for "talking like someone who's not an overly hostile asshole." Basically, when you have a disagreement with someone, you talk about yourself or the concrete facts of the situation, instead of blaming or criticizing the other person.

Besides the fact that blaming and criticism rarely get you what you want (more on that later), talking about yourself and the situation is just going to be clearer and more accurate. Things like "You're so selfish" or "You never help out around the house" or "You hurt my feelings" don't really communicate anything useful.

There's already been a ton written on this topic by more intelligent people than me, so I'm just going to leave you with two informative websites I found:

• The technique explained in detail at Austin CC.
• Lots of good and bad examples are provided at Families.com

If those links ever die or you want more info, you can find similar pages by searching for phrases like "I language in communication."

Humility (using "I think...")

You probably had at least one English teacher who insisted that you should never start statements with things like "I think" or "I believe." Well, you shouldn't take etiquette advice from your English teachers, even when they aren't the types everybody hates. That's not their specialty.

Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People tipped me off to this wisdom from Benjamin Franklin:

I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradictions to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbade myself the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as "certainly", "undoubtedly", etc. I adopted instead of them "I conceive", "I apprehend", or "I imagine" a thing to be so or so; or "so it appears to me at present". 

When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing him immediately some absurdity in his proposition. In answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction. I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right. 

-- Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin

(Try to use a reasonably confident tone though, at least in professional settings, or you'll give some people the impression that you're guessing wildly.)

So scratch out all the "I think" from your English class homework assignments, but use it as much as you want (maybe more?) in every other context.

Can you get the same result by agreeing?

For an example, I'm going to totally plagiarize something I once saw on a parenting message board (I don't remember who told this example; please claim it if it's yours).

The Mom posting this advice was talking about dealing with her own mother (the Grandma). Grandma would call her and suggest that she bring the family over to visit. The Mom found that if she responded, "Ugh, I am SO busy, there's no way I can make it over there until at least Wednesday!" then the Grandma would be upset and argumentative and start complaining about how she never sees the grand kids, et cetera. But if the Mom responded with something like, "Sure! How about Wednesday?" then Grandma would be happy ("Great, I'll make pancakes!").

Either way, the Mom was agreeing to bring the family over on Wednesday, but the Grandma's feelings and response were different based on her attitude.

On one hand, maybe it seems silly of the Grandma to care so much about the presentation of the response, since she's getting what she wants either way, but I think it actually makes sense. The grouchy response has some underlying implications of "your request is unreasonable" and "bringing the family to see you is a big hassle for me," and it's those implications that Grandma was actually arguing with.

Good Intentions tips:

Trying to do something does not automatically mean you actually are doing it. That applies just as much to "being nice" as it does to anything else.

Everyone hates unsolicited advice

I gave this one its own post. Read it here.

Don't overdo favors

When someone does something nice for someone else, the beneficiary often feels obligated to repay the favor in some way. If the benefactor insists that the favor does not need to be repaid, that does pretty much nothing to reduce the sense of obligation! You don't really have to worry about this with family members and close friends, because you'll be helping each other out all the time, and there's no need to keep score when you feel like it'll even out in the long run. Therefore, this advice applies mostly to casual friends and acquaintances.

From my observations, it seems like the "amount" that someone feels compelled to repay is based on either (a) the beneficiary's perception of how much trouble the favor caused for the benefactor (b) how much trouble it would have caused the beneficiary to do that favor for someone (c) a midpoint between the two. The amount of benefit that the person actually receives isn't necessarily a huge factor.

That means, it's entirely possible for the beneficiary's sense of obligation to exceed the actual benefit of the favor! In that case, the beneficiary dislikes receiving the favor.

Thus, if you try too hard to be nice, you could actually end up annoying someone. They'll have trouble holding it against you, but it could still cause them to dislike you if it's an ongoing problem.

By the way, all this talk of favors applies to both acts of service and material gifts.

Non-Annoying tips:

These are some things to keep in mind so that you can avoid accidentally being a pest.

Personal space

People will usually get annoyed if you get too close to them. This varies a lot by culture and personal life experiences, but in the USA, and good rule of thumb is that people want at least three or four feet of space when they're facing each other and having a conversation. However, when they're standing side by side or something, a smaller amount of space is okay, probably about two feet.

In crowded places, such as a busy subway, it's not always practical for everyone to keep as much space as they want. Most people understand this and are reasonable, but one tactic for dealing with the discomfort is pretending the people encroaching on their space are not there or are some kind of inanimate objects. Therefore, people may get annoyed when you talk to them in these situations.

Buffer Seat

In places like theaters or buses, the seats are usually so close together that people will be in each other's space. It's especially bad if either of you are too fat for the seat! Therefore, it's appropriate for strangers to leave an empty seat between each other.

However, sometimes there's too high of a person-to-seat ratio, and it's not possible for everyone to have a buffer seat. In that case, it's not reasonable to insist on a buffer seat. Even in situations wherein people can stand, it's not always easy to stand that long so some people are going to sit in the empty seats. If you're the person who fills the buffer seat, don't be offended if a stranger stands up and moves away. It's nothing personal; they just want more space.

Phone conversations

Seriously, don't have extended phone calls in public places where the people around you can't move away without inconveniencing themselves.

Note, this only applies to verbal conversations on the phone. Some people act like there's something horribly morally wrong with you for doing things like texting, gaming, or reading email, but there's no reason people should be legitimately annoyed by those things, unless you're doing them in some needlessly annoying fashion.

Here are some reasons why verbal phone conversations are actually totally rude:

• It's really irritating and distracting to overhear half of a conversation. It's a lot worse than just overhearing two people talk. Here's an article about a study that found out this information, just in case you were wondering whether I'm the only one that's annoyed. People don't have to be trying to eavesdrop to be affected; even if your phone call is the most boring thing ever and they'd really rather think about their grocery list, their brain is going to stick to your phone call. It's distracting enough to interfere with the cognitive abilities needed for many daily tasks, so in some situations, it can even be dangerous.

• The person having the phone call is also distracted and therefore has a reduced ability to be considerate of other people who are present. If you were talking to someone in person, the other person would be there to notice things that you miss.

• It's harder to hear each other over the phone, so you probably talk louder than normal and frequently repeat yourself.

You can cut yourself some slack if the call is highly important. It's still rude, but some rudeness is forgivable in extenuating circumstances.

Pleasantness Tips:

Doing these things will make people more likely to consider you pleasant and friendly.

Greet people (usually)

This seems to vary a lot by region and setting. I've heard that in some places, you're expected to greet every stranger you pass on the street, which seems weird to me.

However, even in places where it's normal to keep your head down and avoid eye contact with strangers, it's usually a good idea to greet people you know, like when you pass a coworker in the office hallway.

These greetings have two parts:

• First, give an indication of who you're greeting. The normal way is to make eye contact, but it usually also works to say their name in the greeting or look in their general direction.
• Second, communicate the greeting with words, a hand gesture, or both.

It can be a good idea to consider what a person is currently doing before you greet them, to avoid interrupting something.

"How are you?"

Half the people who ask this are using it as some polite figure of speech and don't care how you are, and the other half are just trying to give you a chance to report some kind of news, like a more formal version of, "What's up?" Generally, you should respond to this with, "Good. How are you?" but it's also a chance to say something like, "Oh God, call an ambulance," or, "Just so you know, the copy machine is broken again," in applicable circumstances. 

If you feel like crap, don't say so as a response to this question unless you're expecting the asker to do something about it. You also won't get any good results from faux-positive responses like, "eh, I'm alive."

I feel like it's a bad idea to ask this when you're not in a good situation to have a conversation, e.g. a fast food cashier greeting the first customer and other customers are waiting. However, it seems that many people disagree with me.

About Conversation

A lot of people like to talk about themselves. Certainly, I think most people prefer to talk about themselves or other things they're interested in over other topics. So if you're trying to get on someone's good side, make it easy for them to talk about themselves or their interests by asking about them. If someone tries to talk about something that happened to them, they will often be annoyed if you talk about your own similiar experiences before they're done with what they want to say. If you don't like to talk about yourself (or at all) but someone keeps asking you about yourself in the course of some awkward attempt at small talk, don't worry, they're probably not a stalker. They're just trying to give you a chance to talk about yourself because they think you'll like that.

Empathy* tips:

*By "empathy," I mean putting yourself in someone else's metaphorical shoes--not necessarily feeling the emotion they're feeling, but having an idea of their point of view.

The world is filled with all sorts of people, and you will never understand them the way you understand yourself. Never assume you know someone as well as or better than they know themselves. Still, some understanding is better than no understanding, so here are some tips for considering other people's point of view.

Everybody thinks they're good

Seriously, all sorts of mass-murdering sociopaths have been convinced that they are wonderful people that the law unfairly punished. It's not even that they didn't know (somehow forgot) that they killed those people, but rather the murders didn't take away their self-identified "good person" points.

This has implications for when you want someone to change their behavior.

Mainly, if you give someone unsolicited criticism, it's quite possible won't believe you. (If your criticism describes an objective fact that they agree with, they won't agree that there's anything wrong with that fact.) Instead they'll be offended and defensive and consider YOU to be the bad guy. So, you might as well try to avoid criticizing people when possible.

When you want people to change their behavior, try to be precise. Tell them what you want them to do or stop doing. Don't just tell them to "please be respectful." I mean, it's not like they're going to respond with, "OHHHH, I didn't realize I was supposed to be respectful! Silly me! I'll fix that."

Forgive other people's nonverbal behavior

If someone is annoyed by a situation, it's true that they shouldn't take it out on you. However, if you insist that they effectively pretend they are not annoyed, you're requiring them to have excellent acting skills. Is it a moral flaw to not have excellent acting skills?

Besides, even if you're absolutely sure you interpreted their facial expression, pose, tone of voice, or sigh correctly... maybe you didn't. Even if you're normally good at reading that sort of thing, if someone is from a different region or has neurological differences, they might have different body language than you're used to.

So, if someone does what you want but acts upset about it in the process, let it go.

Everyone wants to be treated with respect

This includes people who have a lower social status than you, such as your children. Basically, don't throw all these techniques out the window just because you're talking to your kid.

Acknowledge personality differences

The Golden Rule has its limitations. Everyone wants to be treated with respect, the details vary from person to person. It's still a good idea to keep the old "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" maxim in mind, but it's a guideline, not a hard and fast rule.

I hope to eventually give many of these differences their own post, but here's an example for now:

Some people like to talk more than others. They just find conversation to be a relaxing activity that helps them bond with people. Not everyone is like that. Lots of folks can talk okay, but it's terribly unfun. There are even some people who aren't very good at talking, so they have to put a lot of effort into it, and long conversations can be mentally exhausting for them.

Likewise, different people like to spend different amounts of time in the presence of others. A good half of the population is more introverted than extroverted, which means they really need a certain amount of time alone to relax, and how much time will vary.

So if someone wants to spend time with you sometimes, but they don't want to spend as much time as you want to spend, or they don't want to converse as much as you want to converse, don't take it personally. It doesn't mean that they don't care about you as much as you care about them.

I've found that it pays to be optimistic about people. When someone does something, you have no way of telling what their motivations and intentions are, and there's usually multiple possible explanations from your point of view. So why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

More info

Feel free to add additional techniques in the comments or to expound on how these techniques have worked for you. It would be great to get info on how all this stuff works in different regions.

About Sensory Issues

"Sensory issues" is sort of a purposefully vague catch-all term for any problems someone might have from the way their neurology processes their physiological senses. That's the "five senses" of sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell, and also the other twenty-something senses no one's ever heard of like nociception and proprioception.

Here is a checklist of Sensory Processing Disorder symptoms. You don't have to have SPD to have sensory issues, but all of the SPD symptoms are examples of sensory issues.

If you have sensory issues but you've never heard about the concept before, you may not have realized. It's hard to tell if you're normal/typical in this regard, since whatever sensitivity level you have is pretty much the only level you've every had, so you have no basis for comparison. However, if you read some info about it, keep it in the back of your mind for a few weeks while you observe yourself and others, then come back and read again, it may seem clearer.

What are the problems?

Most of my knowledge relates to hypersensitivity (being too sensitive) because that's my problem. Some people are under-sensitive instead.

There are two key aspects:

How uncomfortable is the input?

There are some things that normal folks can ignore or that they even find pleasant but that are very annoying to me. Things that most other people find really annoying might be really painful for me. 

Things that super-annoy me include the texture and/or flavor of most vegetables,  the texture of a lot of clothes, the feeling of any socks that aren't microfiber, the vocal sounds made by calm well-behaved children, and that "lurch" when a vehicle comes to a complete stop. That's not a complete list.

OMG, the next time my roommate wears that dumb cologne right before he wants me to drive him somewhere... >:(

Recently when I was at a fast food restaurant, one of the employees was tidying up on the far side of the room, and that involved repositioning some metal bar stools that made a LOUD scraping sound against the tile floor. I think it would have been less startling and less painful if someone had just kept smacking me upside the head at random intervals. I'm guessing other people found the sound kind of annoying, but if normal people found it anywhere near as bad as I did, I'm sure the employee would have been trying to make less sound. She could have moved them less or lifted them off the floor. Actually, it probably would have been a moot point because the management could've put some felt pads on the bottom of the stool legs to prevent the whole problem. Anyway, I left the restaurant earlier than I planned.

How much input is "too much"?

I don't like this metaphor, but I haven't found one I like better, so I'm going to talk about buckets.

Imagine everyone has some kind of psychological bucket, and every sight, sound, taste, smell, texture, motion, physical pain, temperature perception, feeling of having to use the bathroom, et cetera that you experience adds a little bit of water to your bucket. The more intense the sensation, the more water is added, even if it's not an unpleasant sensation. Rest and relaxation will empty your bucket. People like me have a smaller bucket. (And/or sensory input adds more water than normal. Not sure if that distinction matters for this dumb metaphor.)

Some kind of Bad Thing happens for anyone whose bucket starts to overflow, but that's not a common concern for typical adults. However, hypersensitive people like me should constantly manage our buckets. How much water is in it now? How much water will certain activities add? Which activities can I afford to do before my next rest opportunity? Am I okay with having to get the amount of rest that a certain activity will require?

When I get overloaded, I mostly have cognitive or emotional problems. (Fatigued or sleepy, increasingly scatterbrained, anxious or grouchy, eventually angry. When it's severe enough, I can basically become a violent lunatic! Before I understood sensory problems, I thought I had anger issues.) However, I've heard of other people having problems like vision issues or blacking out.

Bucket Management

If you're hypersensitive, I think the most important thing is self-awareness. Just knowing how certain input affects you will make a huge difference because it allows you to make more informed decisions.

When it comes to how much "water" certain input will  add to your "bucket," the key seems to be intensity or length, not unpleasantness. Painful or annoying stimuli obviously cause problems, but I think we might underestimate the effects of stimuli that's pleasant or only a little annoying. Here are some things that bother me that I didn't originally recognize:

Very sweet foods, or foods that otherwise have an intense flavor.

Crowds: Conventions, events, crowded restaurants, the mall at noon on a Saturday, or even the grocery store on the weekend. Even the fun stuff is exhausting. My poor assertiveness makes this worse because I'm always trying to stay out of other people's way and, if I'm with someone else, I have to go at the pace that suits them instead of me.

Riding in a vehicle. It's not as bad if you're the one driving because you're in control of most of the motion. Any factors that increase the inconsistency of the motion (more bumps, rattles, jostles, stops, speed changes, swerves) will make it worse, such as road conditions, vehicle functionality, the style/ability of the driver, or how much traffic there is.

Having my hair in a hair clip.

Air blowing on me (e.g. a fan).

Bucket improvement?

Apparently, if you do a lot of exercises that stimulate your proprioceptive system (sense of where all your body parts are) or vestibular system (sense of movement), it will relieve hypersensitivity at least a little--both making input less painful and increasing your capacity for input. I don't know of any widespread studies, but some personal experience and some anecdotes seem to match up with the idea.

A lot of the relevant exercises are things you might normally do in the course of "working out" or naturally having a physically active lifestyle. Since they're healthy for you anyway, it's not a bad idea to give it a shot and see if it works for you.

Proprioception exercises involve putting pressure on the joints and connective tissue:

• Pushing something heavy
• Pulling something heavy
• Hanging from something (pull-ups, monkey bars)

Vestibular exercises involve moving yourself:

• Push ups (do push ups against the wall if you are too weak to do normal push ups)
• Dance
• Jog or run

Be careful not to overstimulate yourself, which is easy with vestibular activities.

Treatment?

For children diagnosed with some kind of disorder, such as sensory processing disorder, occupational therapy can help. If you're an adult, society doesn't care about you, so you'll probably have trouble finding an occupational therapist for this kind of problem. Fortunately, it's easier to help yourself with this kind of thing than it is to help someone else.

Stimming

Stimulation of one's own nerves (stimming) is done by everyone to comfort themselves or to modulate sensory input when their instincts are making them feel like the input they're getting isn't enough. I think most hyper-sensitive people stim more than normal people, for comfort, and I'm making a wild guess that under-sensitive people will stim WAY more.

Technically, everybody stims, but the term is generally only used for those of us who do unusual activities or do it with unusual frequency. Some people really hate it when children do certain forms of stimming and will try to prevent them from doing it (either because they're embarrassed to be seen a weird child, or because they associate stimming with some kind of disrespect toward themselves for some reason, or because they think that stopping the stimming will cure you of whatever problem caused the need for stimming). As a result, you may have gotten into the bad habit of not stimming very much.

A structured plan for stimming is called a "sensory diet" (the word "diet" is metaphorical here), but you can also just stim willy-nilly as you need to,

If you think you might need to stim more, here are some ideas: (Update: There's a bigger list in this post.)

Socially acceptable or only slightly weird:

• Wear a weighted vest when driving.
• Use a weighted blanket when sleeping.
• Squeeze a stress ball.
• Pet a furry animal.
• Take a hot bath or shower.
• Press your hands together really hard in front of your chest for a few seconds.
• Look at fire (e.g. candles or fireplace).
• Lift weights or something heavy (without straining).

These could cause sensory input to the people around you (which could be annoying and/or they'll just think you're weird) so use with caution:

• Bounce your leg.
• Rock back and forth.
• Swing your legs while sitting.
• While sitting in an office chair, use your feet to rotate back and forth.
• Pace.
• Anything else that causes you to be in constant motion, as long as you're in control of the motion.
• Any kind of focused breathing or breathing exercises.
• Hum.

If you need pain:

• Squeeze an ice cube.
• If you have any small skin injuries (e.g. paper cuts, or your pet scratched you), put rubbing alchohol on it.

Stuff that could work as a stim but you should probably avoid doing as a stim:

• Anything that injures you.
• Eating (not necessarily bad, but it can easily become a habit)

More info

Unfortunately, I don't have much knowledge about hyposensitivity (under-sensitive or sensory seeking), so it would be great if you folks could add anything on that topic.

Also feel free to share your stimming tricks or sensory coping techniques.

Anyway....

• Too Loud, Too Bright, Too Fast, Too Tight - This is a great self-help book about sensory defensiveness (hypersensitivity) for adults or adolescents that have the problem.
• The Highly Sensitive Person - A concept and associated book for folks that are more sensitive than most people but not so sensitive that it's debilitating. Unfortunately, some fans of this concept think that because they don't have a sensory disorder that must mean that no one has a sensory disorder... but the info is otherwise still handy.
• Info about creating a "sensory diet" - If you want to create a sensory diet for a child, you probably want to have your child treated by an occupational therapist.
• Hyperbole and a Half: Sneaky Hate Spiral - This hilarious blog doesn't mention sensory issues specifically, but I suspect sensory issues might be contributing to the author's experiences. Either way, there's definitely some overlap with the way I feel.

About Sex

You don't have to have sex if you don't want to.

Maybe that seems obvious, but some people act like it's not true--like sex is just something you need to do, like eating your vegetables or filing your taxes, but supposedly more fun.

If you're having sex less than six times a month, rest assured that you're not alone. There's this article (Times) that talks about how the Millennial generation is having less frequent sex and will probably end up with fewer sex partners compared to previous generations. Then there's this other article (The Guardian) about how just about everyone is having less sex these days, compared to 10 or 20 years ago.

Now, the tone and purpose of that second article is just kind of baffling. It opens up with the idea that sex is a recreational activity and has decreased in prevalence because people have better things to do. Then it talks about how people often find sex to be stressful and unpleasant. Then it tries to convince you to go out and force yourself to have sex, even if you aren't in a relationship, because... no reason. I reread the article looking for any mentions of upsides of sex, and there weren't any. Not even some BS stat about oxytocin or anything. The author apparently thinks sex is inherently awesome and just assumes that everyone else agrees.

It's like some weird religious belief. (Or maybe it just feels like that to me because it reminds me of how some people will try to reference the Christian Bible to convince you of something, without first checking whether you're even a Christian.) This article isn't the only place I've seen this attitude. Even the counselor I went to kept getting hung up on my allegedly unconventional sex life, even though I was paying her ridiculous sums of money for help on my executive function problems and I repeatedly informed her that I'm quite happy with the lack of sex I'm having.

None of this is intended to dissuade you from having sex if you actually want to. By all means, go out and have as much sex as you want, with other consenting individuals. Use protection. But if you're asexual, or you're too busy, or you're having a dry spell, or you only want to have sex in a committed relationship, or you haven't found anyone who's your type, or if you like sex slightly less than that new video game you're playing... that's okay too! There's nothing wrong with not having sex.

I know most people want to have more sex than I do, since I'm ace, but I'm pretty sure that even among folks who experience sexual attraction, most people aren't sex-crazed lunatics who never ever have anything better to do.

As for why people in general are having less sex these days, that first article mentioned that people are really busy and also that they're less inclined to risky behavior than past generations, and I agree that those things are probably factors. I also have some additional baseless hypotheses about why people might be having less sex:

Sex is less mysterious than it used to be. In the past, if you had any curiosity or cognitive interest in sex, your only option for satisfaction was to go have sex. Nowadays, that's not necessary. You can read informative books or Internet pages, you can watch porn videos, you can read erotic fiction... Heck, if you have the radio in your car on a Top 40 station, you'll probably spend your whole commute to work hearing mostly songs with sex-related lyrics. Advertisements are full of sex implications. Sex is everywhere. Sex isn't inherently cool anymore.

(Personally, I think sex is really interesting, but actually having sex tends to be a much bigger hassle and less fulfilling than any of the other sex-related activities I could be doing.)

Easier access to masturbation aids. There is no longer any need to treat your fellow humans like walking masturbation aids. You can easily buy a vibrator or other device in a local shop in your town, or online. The Internet is overflowing with free porn. If your main motivation for sex is either relaxation or libido relief, you can easily take care of it yourself.

We are more empowered about sex. This is like the first time in recorded history that people have the option of not having sex if they don't want to! In many past generations, the only way to avoid sex was to have your entire life revolve around celibacy by becoming a nun or something. The Bible says spouses have a duty to have sex with each other, and it seems like a lot of non-Christian areas had similar ideas. Did you know that it was completely legal for a man to rape his wife in some parts of the USA as recently as 1993? Ridiculous.

But it's now 2015! Feel free to go around having ONLY as much as sex as you want!

Thoughts about Neurodiversity

You may have noticed a disparity of opinions on autism or a cure thereof, and I want to explain what I believe that disparity comes from. Not that I can speak for others, but I'd say my views on this are similar to the "neurodiversity acceptance" camp, but framed here in a slightly different way than I usually see it, and contrary to most medical groups or the "cure" camp.

The short version is that neurodiversity (e.g. autism spectrum) is a perfectly okay non-disabling trait that has a high likelihood of being packaged with some other traits that actually are disabling.

What is a disorder?

Before I go further, let me do an analogy. Diabetes is a health problem. Generally no one is going to argue that diabetes is not a health problem. Although any cloud can have a silver lining, diabetes is unquestionably a Bad Thing that we would all like to not have. Diabetes treatments are important, and we would like to have a cure for diabetes.

In the USA, black people are more likely to have diabetes than the general population. That does NOT mean that being black is a health problem! They're not even the only ones who get diabetes. It might make sense for social services to focus a little more diabetes help to the black population or for parents to give their black kids more diabetes prevention advice, but if anyone suggested that we need to find a "cure for black," everyone would think they're nuts and rightfully so. Actually, it's not just diabetes, there are a lot of problems that differ in prevalence by race, and the African-American population tends to get the short straw on a lot of them. But even if it were possible (and it probably is) to make black kids look indistinguishably like white kids, that's not a worthy goal. That wouldn't even fix most of their problems. The only thing it would fix would be people discriminating against them, but that problem could be better solved by everyone else not being racist.

Neuro-types are the same way. All of the negative characteristics of autism fall into one or more of these categories:

1. There is another disorder which describes that problem, and you could have just been diagnosed with some other disorders instead (e.g. Social Communication Disorder, Social-Emotional Learning Disability, Sensory Processing Disorder, Executive Function Disorder, etc)
2. A lot of non-autistic people have that problem, and they are impaired by it despite not having autism (e.g. low IQ, everything in category A)
3. A lot of autistic people don’t have that problem (e.g. non-verbal, low IQ, etc)
4. Lots of autistic people have that problem but it’s not even part of the official diagnostic criteria (e.g. auditory processing problems, executive function problems—previously this was the case with sensory problems too! And I've heard a lot of us have gastrointestinal problems for reason.)
5. It’s not legitimately impairing, but many non-autistic people will look down on you and treat you badly because of it (e.g. unusual body language, less eye contact than normal, non-disruptive stimming, sometimes even introversion)

The problem comes from the way neurotypicality and autism are defined. The ASD diagnostic criteria does not accurately describe the real problem. 

In other words, most people who are impaired or disabled by symptoms of Autism Spectrum Disorder could have their impairments explained by another disorder or a combination of disorders, instead of ASD. For example, the social issues of SPCD plus repetitive behaviors caused by SPD. In some cases, it may be a disorder that's not defined yet.

Most people who are diagnosed with ASD are disordered, impaired, or disabled in some way, especially if they were diagnosed as adults. They need actual help with their actual problems... but I don't think autism is their problem. 

The broad idea of autism

There is a concept called Broad Autistic Phenotype (BAP) which describes autistic traits independant of disability. The qualities are aloof personality, rigid personality, and pragmatic language problems, but that's "I hate people who don't fulfill my extroversion needs"-speak for untalkative introversion and a fondness for consistancy and predictibility. You might see the occassional article talking about BAP like it's a mild developmental disorder, but it's not officially a disorder--and it shouldn't be. I guess you could call it a personality type.

There has been very little research into BAP, and most of the research that has been done is on the family members of children diagnosed with ASDs. (Research found that family membes of ASD kids were more likely to have BAP qualities than the general population.) Unfortunately, even on the studies that focus on non-disordered people with BAP, something about the study wording made it sound like the researchers considered BAP to be a bad thing.

I think people with BAP tend to be more similar to autistics than they are to NTs but they are considered NTs (especially if they don't have ASD family members) because they don't fit the sketchy diagnostic criteria for ASDs. Some may be disabled by autistic-typical problems that are not in the diagnostic criteria, or some may have autistic-typical problems that aren't bad enough to cause "clinically significant impairment," and some may be totally non-disabled altogether.

There is almost no research about this type of people or this type of brain. There's even less value-neutral research or information about the strengths and weaknesses of this group compared to other groups. Autism is considered to be a disorder because it impairs people, but only impaired people can be considered to have autism.

Neurotypical people are called that because they are the majority, but I bet they could be divided into more precise categories if they weren't defined solely by their lack of an ASD diagnosis. Maybe some of those hypothetical categories have a higher likelihood of certain problems or impairments. For example, autistic people sometimes have a problem with non-literal language, but I've seen a lot of people (not all or even most NTs) who apparently have the opposite problem: they have difficulty taking things literally when they're supposed to, they read non-existent inferences into things, and it seems to cause them problems. I can't help but think if we had better language for different neuro-types, we'd have better research, and everyone would benefit.

I say "probably"/"maybe"/"seems" so much, and I don't provide any stats to support these ideas, because as far as I know, these things aren't studied from this perspective or any similar perspective.

Implications for Treatment

This is why there's so much debate about looking for a "cure." Some people are offended by the suggestion that autism needs to be cured or even diagnosed, and  compare it to curing or diagnosing homosexuality. I think people who hold that perspective consider "autism" to refer to BAP, not ASD, even if they've never heard of BAP.

I WANT a cure for my executive function deficits.
I WANT a cure for my debilitating sensory defensiveness.
I WANT a cure for my gastrointestinal problems.
I WANT a cure for my social anxiety.
And I think I--and everyone else--should've been given some actual human relations education during those years I wasted in school, rather than having to home-school myself as an adult.
But I DON'T WANT a cure for my personality. I don't need a cure for my other harmless traits.

The above problems have ruined most of my life and will continue ruining it until I get some kind of treatment for it. But people who have a problem with my uncommon gestures, lack of eye-to-eye gaze, untalkativeness, or introversion can go screw themselves. But which of my traits are considered to come from "autism"?

It seems like most research about autism cures and treatments is concerned about things like eye contact and rocking and generally making kids look "normal." Apparently no one cares that toothpaste is painful or that the idea of mailing a prepared envelope emotionally crushes me.

The prevailing idea among people who want to cure autism seems to be that the Broader Autism Phenotype is a bad thing, but not bad enough to be called a disorder, unless you have an unusually bad case of it, in which case it's called ASD instead of BAP. I'm arguing that BAP is a perfectly okay trait that unfortunately comes with a higher predisposition to certain disorders. I can't help but feel like people diagnosed with ASD actually just have BAP plus some other disorder(s), and it's those disorders that are the problem, not BAP or autism. Meanwhile, the people with BAP and no disorders aren't diagnosed with anything, which is how it should be.

Unfortunately, society seems to have trouble handling more than a couple different disorders. (For example, if you're a parent trying to get your kid disability accomodations in school, you're likely going to have a hard time regardless, but it'll be be even harder if it's a disorder the staff has never heard of or doesn't believe in. And we're always having to try to convince the uninformed masses that people with [insert disorder] aren't inherently dangerous sociopaths, but now imagine if autism were replaced with fifty other disorders and we had to convince people about all of them!) Even though I feel like no one should be "diagnosed" with autism, I'm still pursuing a diagnosis of autism (ASD) for myself. Why? Because I need help with the above problems, and hardly anyone has ever heard of the more specific disorders that encompass those problems. I actually did try getting help for SPD once, but I found NO ONE who would help. Even though autism is really well-known, I had a hard time finding anyone who would asses or treat autism in adults.

The one upside to autism being this awkward hodgepodge of disorders is that it allows all those problems to at least get a little bit of attention. Still, it'd be better if we started using the word "autism" to refer to BAP, stopped trying to cure it, and started giving all those other disorders the attention they deserve.

A postscript regarding disabilities

Oh, yeah. This is kind of tangential but I want to clarify this one thing... The concept of "I'm not disabled; you're just a jerk" is not supposed to be any kind of alternative, correction, or supplantation of the concept of "I'm disabled and you need to stop being a jerk about it." Sometimes people pathologize traits that should be considered perfectly acceptable, and that's a problem. Sometimes people act like individuals with disabilities can't have any worth or value in their lives, and that's a problem. Those are two separate problems that both exist. Well, my point is, arguing that an alleged disability is an unfairly pathologized trait is not the same as arguing that all disabilities would stop existing if people would stop being jerks.

There are also some people who are troubled by their disability symptoms, but it's such a big part of their personal identity that they feel uncomfortable at the idea of getting rid of it. (I can sympathize a little. Certainly, it's really weird to imagine myself NOT having sensory defensiveness.) They're not the one's I'm talking about in this post, but I don't want to sound like I'm denying that they exist.

Credits

Thanks to some folks on wrongplanet.net (ASpartOfMe, cavernio, Knofskia, B19, WelcomeToHolland, and Aristophones) for helping me solidify these ideas.

Everyone Hates Unsolicited Advice

Seriously. Everyone.

Okay, okay. There are a few people who claim to not hate unsolicited advice... but they're in a very tiny minority. Chances are that family member you're about to give your oh-so-enlightening advice to is not one of those people.

What is unsolicited advice?

"Unsolicited" means the recipient didn't ask for it.

If you're writing something like an article, blog post, and Facebook status that's not addressed to anyone in particular, you can usually advise as much as you want, because anyone who doesn't want to see it can just scroll on past. (Of course, if people consider the advice itself to be inherently offensive or stupid, they will still be offended or think you're stupid.) But comments or responses to posts, posts addressed to a specific category of people (even if not a particular person), or sending a copy or link of an article to someone are all examples of unsolicited advice and you want to avoid them.

If someone does solicit advice from you, that's not a pass to go giving advice on other unrelated topics. Stick to what they asked about, unless there's actually a connection.

By the way, just because someone is complaining about something doesn't mean they're soliciting advice. This is especially true if the person complaining is someone who just plain likes conversation in general.

Why do people hate it?

If my advice for you is really a great idea, you probably already thought of it, and you probably don't appreciate my implication that you aren't capable of thinking of it yourself.

Maybe you agree that my advice is a better alternative to what you're currently doing on that topic, but you don't care enough about it to adjust your lifestyle to receive that benefit.

Maybe you don't have the same values I do. Maybe your problem is important but my proposed solution is too big of a sacrifice. Maybe I have a different goal in mind than you do.

People have different skills and preferences. Even if it's good advice for me, even if the advice could work for you, there could be another way that's easier or better for you. Maybe the situation you're in would be a problem for me but isn't a problem for you.

I surely think I'm knowledgeable on this topic if I'm giving advice, but... maybe I'm not. Maybe you already researched the issue and found out that whatever I'm suggesting is inferior to another solution you found. Maybe my advice is particularly bad.

Unsolicited advice is basically criticism (e.g. whatever you're doing now is inferior to whatever I'm suggesting). Constructive critique can be incredibly useful, but that still doesn't mean you appreciate someone constantly bashing your choices! At some point, it's basically nagging.

If you want to talk about your situation or even answer the question, "How are you?" honestly, you probably don't appreciate me trying to shut you up with advice. Maybe I'm sick of listening to your negativity, but implying that fact through "advice" isn't much more polite than just saying it outright.

Maybe I don't even understand your problem properly, even after you've tried to explain it. Maybe my advice would be a great solution for a different problem than the one that you have.

"Think positive" is not even legit advice.

What if you NEED to give advice? (Or really, really want to?)

Sometimes you have awesome advice that you're pretty sure this other person totally needs. If you're a parent or somebody's boss, it's practically your job to give advice. So here's some tips I've found for giving advice as politely as possible.

DO:

Ask yourself what's the worst that could plausibly happen if you kept your opinion to yourself. Even if you are a parent or boss, that doesn't mean you need to give your child or subordinate every piece of advice that crosses your mind.

Give information and let the recipient decide what to do with it. (e.g. If you watched the weather report and your family member didn't, feel free to say, "By the way, the weather report said it's going to rain today," without adding, "You should take an umbrella.") However, there are two caveats to this tip:

• Make sure you don't state obvious information so that the recipient feels like you're insulting their intelligence.
• Avoid implying what they should do with the info. "If you [insert something other than what they're doing], then [result you think they want]" is usually not acceptable.

Say what worked for you, but keep it very brief. Just say one sentence that starts with something like, "I had a problem kind of like that once, and what worked for me was...." If they are interested in your solution, they will solicit additional information. If you can't fit even a summary of your situation into one sentence, it might work to say, "I had a problem kind of like that once; I can tell you what worked for me if you think it'll help."

In some situations, it can be helpful to let someone know you have advice to give, so they can ask for it if they want, e.g. when my friend and I are playing the same video game and one of us is struggling with a part the other already passed, we'll say, "Let me know if you want to hear how I did it." However, this contains an implicit judgment that the way they're currently doing it is inferior to your way, so it's inappropriate for many situations.

Be humble. Give the person an "out," as in, a prepared excuse for not taking your advice. "I don't know if it'll work for you, but...."

DON'T:

Don't start a sentence with "You should...."

Don't ask, "Why don't you [insert what you think they should do]?" because not only are you advising them, you're demanding that they justify their choices to you.

Don't give them the same advice multiple times for the same problem. There's a reason they didn't take it the first time.

Don't get all pissy when someone doesn't take your advice.

Don't give advice too often. If you nag all the time, the people you nag at will stop taking your suggestions seriously.

Constructive-Selfish

There's this brand of soap you may have heard of call Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap, which is notable because the label is covered in text from the funky religious writings of the company's founder. The writing style is unusual--it often goes off on sudden tangents about how communism is a bad thing and overall sounds like something made by translation software. But one thing I like about it is how, whenever there's not a good word in the English language for a concept he wants to refer to, he just combines words with hyphens to get the same idea. That's how you get terms like "constructive-selfish."

I wanted to pass on some quotes from the peppermint soap advising people to be constructive-selfish:

"1st: If I'm not for me, who am I? Nobody!
2nd: Yet, if I'm only for me, what am I? Nothing!
3rd: If no now, when? Once More: Unless constructive-selfish I work hard perfecting first me, absolute nothing can help me! [...]"

"5th: Whatever unites mankind is better than whatever divides us! Yet, if absolute-unselfish I am not for me, I'm not but classless, raceless, starving masses, never free nor brave! Only if constructive-selfish I work hard perfecting first me, like arctic owls - penguin - pilot - cat - swallow - beaver, bee, can I teach the MORAL ABC'S ALL - ONE - GOD - FAITH [...]"

"7th: Each Swallow works hard to be perfect pilot-provider-builder-trainer-teacher-lover-mate, no half-true hate! So, each day like a bird, perfect thyself first! Have courage and smile my friend. Think and act 10 years ahead! And the man without fault? He's dead! Do one thing at a time, work hard! Get done! [...]"

"12th: A great teacher, must first, a self-supporting hardworker be, like Alesen - Baeck - Carnegie - Cousteau - Hammer - Liebman - Paine - Sanger - Spinoza - Strauss - Szasz - Wilke - Yadin - Zamenhof, or he'll turn our greatest teaching into spades, to bury our people!"

Confession: I only recognize two people from that list of names.

About Empathy

Going to open this blog up with a little complaint of sorts about the word "empathy."

The problem with "empathy" is that the same word is used to refer to a couple different concepts. Because language shapes our ideas, people end up conflating those different concepts into a single thing. Even scientific studies, which you'd think would have to define what they're trying to measure, often end up confusing the different ideas. It's always assumed that lacking one empathy means you lack all of the other empathies, even though that makes no sense because they're completely different traits/skills that just happen to share the same word due to a quirk of our language!

Here are the different ideas I've seen for the word empathy. For the sake of clarity, I'm going to invent new terms for all of them!

1. Emotional Perception

The ability to identify another person's emotional state based on things like facial expression, body language, tone of voice, etc. Obviously, no one can completely read minds, but some people are better at this than others. Society expects you to have a certain level of skill in this.

This is a common problem for people with autism spectrum conditions. Especially when they're children who haven't had as much practice, autistic people often have more trouble than other people identifying what emotions someone is feeling. However, having trouble with this skill, doesn't mean you have trouble with this next one...

2. Anti-Malevolence

Giving a damn about other people's feelings. I've seen this described as trait where your emotions naturally change to become more similar to the emotions of those around you, whether you like it or not, e.g. you are saddened by the sadness of others. This means you want to avoid emotionally hurting other people. I'm not sure that sort of unwilling vicariousness is actually the best way to think of it, but either way, it's basically the same idea as "having a conscience."

I called this anti-malevolence instead of benevolence because it's not necessarily a desire to do good so much as it's a desire to not do harm.

It seems most people have this trait toward some but not all creatures.

The complete lack of this trait is the defining characteristic of sociopathy (aka psychopathy, which should not be confused with psychosis), which is the science-y word for "evil." I once heard a statistic that 4% of people lack this trait, meaning 4% of people are sociopaths. That's one in 25! Kind of scary. Now, just because someone's a sociopath doesn't mean they go around murdering everyone with a chain saw. There are plenty of other reasons a person will choose to behave nicely, such as not getting arrested. Sociopaths who believe in a punitive God will obey their religion's commandments to avoid damnation and/or receive rewards in the afterlife, but they have no problem hurting others when their religion allows or requires it. Non-sociopaths will be decent human beings regardless of whether they believe in God. Non-sociopaths may still act deliberately hurtful toward others, but they'll feel bad about it.

Sociopaths can be (and often are) skilled in identifying and predicting the emotions of others. It's not that they don't understand emotions, it's that they don't care. They can act remorseful, but they won't feel legitimate remorse.

It's also normal for very young children to lack this anti-malevolence. (I'm not sure when they're supposed to grow out of it. I actually vaguely remember my "conscience" kicking in when I was six, but I'm pretty sure I was a late bloomer in this regard.) I think it's because they don't yet have the cognitive development and life experience to truly conceive of other people's emotions, even if they have been informed about the idea.

3. Predictive Prosocialness

The ability to predict what another person's emotional state will be after some hypothetical event, and adjusting your actions to avoid inflicting negative emotions on people, e.g. Bob will probably feel upset if I punch him in the face, so I won't do that.

"Prosocialness" is an awkward-sounding word, but I didn't invent it. Prosocial behavior is "voluntary behavior intended to benefit another."

This is more of a combination of skills than its own trait. In order to make accurate prosocial predictions, you need ALL of these qualities:

a. A motive to avoid upsetting someone (whether it's anti-malevolence, another more selfish reason, or a combination)

b. Cognitive capacity to understand cause and effect in general (kids start to get this around 8 months, but it's not really developed until around three years old--more details here).

c. Enough information to make an accurate prediction. Some events are easier to predict than others, and it's easier to make predictions about people you know well.

d. The means and motive to attempt to make a prediction. People who are highly impulsive (e.g. anyone with hyperactive-type ADHD, most children) will have trouble with this because they tend to go straight from idea to action without pausing to consider other hypotheses about the consequences. But insufficient information could thwart you too, i.e. if it just plain hadn't occurred to you that someone's feelings would be effected by an event, you won't stop to think about HOW their feelings would be effected.

So if someone fails at this, there could be a variety of reasons.

4. Emotional Vicariousness

The ability to understand another person's situation, accurately put yourself in their metaphorical shoes. The more similar another person's situation is to something you've experienced (and remember experiencing), the easier this is.

This is the dictionary definition of empathy: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

5. Appreciation of Art

The other dictionary definition of empathy: "the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself." I'm not very knowledgeable about this one, honestly, I just know the idea exists.

Conclusion

Why bother to distinguish between these different ideas, when they can all be called "empathy"? No doubt some people would call it splitting hairs.

Well, lots of people have these traits to different degrees, and things become quite hurtful when they're all seen to correlate. For example, autistic people often have trouble with identifying the emotions of others, so they are often stereotyped as sociopaths. Likewise I've seen some people understate the threat of sociopathy because they figure sociopaths are well-intentioned people with crappy social skills or intellectual disabilities.

We can't spread information about complex ideas without words to represent those ideas.