>Some vocalize that they notice something is off and I might tell them about autism and give them an outline of what it means. If I tell them I often also ask if they can put it into concrete examples of what I do differently. They never can.

This really hits home for me.

I've never been diagnosed as autistic or Asperger's, but I'm very socially awkward, anxious, and have always been considered quite "weird" by peers and strangers. I also believe I share many symptoms with those who are on the autistic spectrum; if I ever saw a doctor I suspect I might get diagnosed with something.

I've also just about never been invited to any social gathering or to "hang out", though even if I was asked I'd almost definitely make an excuse and say I couldn't.

Any time I ask someone about exactly what it is that I do differently, I can never get a precise answer.

Over time I've come to realize what some of those differences are, and every day I try to consciously change or remove them, but it can be difficult. Sometimes I'll forget, sometimes it'll be very instinctive, etc. It really does feel like putting on a mask of normalcy a lot of the time though.

If it makes you feel any better, there are a lot of people like you and me out there.

Ditto. I'm well past the age where a diagnosis can officially be made, but I know several people with autism or Aspergers at varying degrees of functionality, and they will tell me that they think I've got Aspergers.

I went through a long period where I kind of mostly knew how to fake normal, and be sociable, and hate it, but I've mostly gotten past that. I attribute it to getting really lucky with friends- high school had a lot* of people who were just as weird as me in different ways, so we could all tolerate each others weirdness together and not feel awkward about figuring out social skills. And then I got even luckier in college to get noticed by people who actually did invite me to go hang out and go to parties, generally show that they cared, even if I didn't end up going half the time. Things like making eye contact, figuring out how small talk works, conversational turn-taking, reading other people's facial expressions / other body language steel feel like consciously applied skills that do not come naturally, but with a few years of practice with that kind of background, it is no longer actively miserable to do.

The biggest influence in all that, though, was my wife. I really lucked out on finding a nice understanding, mutually introverted young lady who decided she wanted to marry me and let me skip trying to figure out how dating works! She's a big help with interfacing with the Real World.

*Uh, by the standards of my typical preferred introverted circle-of-friends size. Like, 5.

>In a way I'm like everyone else.

When I was diagnosed with ADD as an adult, the doctor said, people with ADD are just like everyone else, only moreso.

A lot of what I feel, and the comments I see from those diagnosed on the autism spectrum, sounds like good old introversion. An introvert in a social setting is very much wearing a mask, trying to hold on long enough before all willpower is drained. I guess an extrovert probably feels the same about reading Large Scale C++ Software Design on a Saturday night.

Across the spectrum of neurodiversity (incl. ADD & autism), a large gap exists in language for:

- common emotional experiences, good and bad

- coping patterns for profiling & impedance matching other humans

- dysfunctional behavior patterns that should be avoided

Sadly, because most of these behaviors have been observed from the viewpoint of medical pathology, many "dictionaries" have a negative slant.

E.g. ADD could be a "deficit" of attention, or it could be a "surplus" of attention, e.g. someone switches into a context for a few seconds, then switches out because they are already finished processing it. It's like the duty cycle of an electronic component, forcing the duration to be longer would lead to sensor overload.

Someone could be labelled introvert because they can only spend a short amount of time with other people. But perhaps they have low psychic barriers for the energy of other people and are being bombarded with emotions. Is that anti-social or super-social? What if there was standardized terminology for configuring emotional firewalls?

The language of disability is often defined by majorities. One ADD person with four non-ADD people may be viewed as "rude" for interrupting before sentences are complete, whereas one non-ADD person among four ADD people may be unable to keep up with five concurrent and tangential conversations where completed sentences are entirely optional.

> The language of disability is often defined by majorities. One ADD person with four non-ADD people may be viewed as "rude" for interrupting before sentences are complete, whereas one non-ADD person among four ADD people may be unable to keep up with five concurrent and tangential conversations where completed sentences are entirely optional.

Thank you for making that comparison. I still struggle to hold back from finishing others' sentences, even though it seems like I finish them "correctly" more often than not.

I'm also reminded of how how middle eastern peace talks are complicated, in part, by the major differences in conversational styles. One side expects to be interrupted, while the other finds it incredibly rude.

There's a great improv book that helps with inter-universe clock sync and emotional reactions to resync operations :) http://www.amazon.com/Impro-Improvisation-Theatre-Keith-John...

Seconded. I've been meaning to re-read my copy for ages.

>E.g. ADD could be a "deficit" of attention, or it could be a "surplus" of attention

This is very true. Of the six types of ADD, one is "over focus". It is ironic that someone with attention deficit disorder can focus intensely on the same thing for 12 hours. I'm not an expert on the biology of it, but it seems like a problem caused by improper regulation of some chemicals in the brain, the same way improper regulation of insulin release can cause all kinds of problems.

Why the false dichtomy? I consider myself a very social person, and I can still treasure a night at home with a cpu reference manual. I see no reason to value one over the other as they are not on the same thing.

The idea that introverts are somehow better programmers is a bit like seeing someone with glasses and expecting them to be bookworms. I understand it is a convenient social role up for grabs, but not everyone who think they are good programmers really are.

A lot of the hackers I know are very easy going and social people. We come in all shapes and sizes.

Introvert-extrovert is a spectrum, not a false dichotomy. It is also a model, and certainly no one fits either archetype 100% accurately. There are people across the entire spectrum, and people who have both traits at different times. I only observed that many of the comments by those diagnosed with some form of autism seemed to be mostly on the introverted end of the spectrum, and sometimes to an extreme. It's anecdotal evidence at best, and perhaps means nothing. Just an observation.

Programming was just an illustrative example. Certainly there are programmers who are very social and extroverted. However, if you went into 1000 random night clubs on a Saturday night and polled every person, it's a safe bet that the percentage of people who would rather be at home engaged in software development would be much lower compared to a group of 100k introverts. The fact that you may not fit that description, or that you know some people who don't fit that description, is at best anecdotal evidence.

Introvert-extrovert is a spectrum. The false dichotomy is that extroverts is not entertained by programming and/or other intellectual ventures.

It is simply a preconceived notion without any real evidence, much like the one that people wearing glasses is more intellectual than others.

There are good and bad programmers among both extroverts and introverts. I know a few introverts might wish things to be different, but there is simply no evidence at all for this. If you are to have an intellectual discussion about these things you have to let go of your preconceptions.

Introversion doesn't mean you don't like parties or socializing.

I very much appreciate it! Thanks so much for sharing. It's inspirational how positive you are, even given the frustrations you outlined. When so-called "normal" people treat different people so poorly, it makes me wonder who really has the disorder.

I can't really comment on all you have said. But you and a few others replying to you have echo'd the sentiment that "you wish you were invited even though you wouldn't have gone". People pick up on that. It really only takes one instance of turning down an invitation to go out and people will get the impression / idea that you don't want to hang out with them and cease inviting you. Especially if you don't make an attempt to reciprocate and invite them to do something.

Just 2 cents from someone who has experienced similar feelings.

> Some vocalize that they notice something is off and I might tell them about autism and give them an outline of what it means. If I tell them I often also ask if they can put it into concrete examples of what I do differently. They never can.

The people who can't give examples, can't because they're not emotionally sophisticated or developed enough yet where either 1) they can notice and articulate specific examples or 2) they're comfortable having a genuine discussion on the difficult topic. It's hard feeling like you're missing out, but if you apply yourself in your field and interests you might find that you can make more genuine and worthwhile friends elsewhere.

Not too weird at all! Enlightening, generous, and gratefully received here. Difference is not something our society, and it seems most societies, handle well. Here's hoping a better line is found between empowering and transforming.

The world could use a "Neurodiversity Parenting" equivalent of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Babies-Imagined-Childcare-Societ...

"Every culture thinks that it knows the best way to care for babies. DeLoache and Gottlieb, both professors at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, have gathered fictionalized accounts, based on factual information and including a brief description of the culture, of how various societies throughout history and the world think their offspring should be raised. Each of these accounts is written in a style similar to Dr. Benjamin Spock's child-care manuals, but using the traditions of each represented culture to create an analogous guidebook. This is an entertaining and educational collection of invented guidebooks spanning the globe. Questions such as what is the key to a successful pregnancy, when to bathe the baby, how long to nurse, and how to celebrate the various ceremonies that revolve around a birth are descriptively explained through the eyes of societies such as the Puritans of New England, the Fulani of western Africa, and a Muslim village in central Turkey. This book is an intriguing opportunity to learn about other cultures."