Continued from part 1…
In this post, I’m going to look at part B Attwood and Gray’s aspie criteria, listed below. The full criteria can be found in their article, The Discovery of “Aspie” Criteria.
B. Fluent in “Aspergerese”, a social language characterized by at least three of the following:
- a determination to seek the truth
- conversation free of hidden meaning or agenda
- advanced vocabulary and interest in words
- fascination with word-based humour, such as puns
- advanced use of pictorial metaphor
I’ve seen all of these in my aspie friends, and I value all of them in my friends and in myself, but I’d like to focus on the first two, because I believe they are at the core of aspie communication. Let’s see what these look like…
Recently, I received a request at work to manually add a professor to a course. I could have done that in a few minutes, but I developed a system that does it automatically shortly after I took this job. I immediately wondered why it didn’t happen automatically. I wondered if my system was somehow broken. Did I find out? Yep. I followed the trail to its end and I found out that someone had not entered that information into the system. Part of the reason I’m good at what I do is that I will chase a problem until I find the truth behind it or it gives up from sheer exhaustion. I will then fix it until it’s fixed, or if I can’t, I will make the problem known. I can’t help myself. I HAVE to know what really happened, and it will bother me until I understand it and get it fixed. That said, there are things that don’t matter. If Justin Bieber’s hair is out of place, I’m not your guy. Read my previous post to see why.
In an earlier post, I said “you don’t have to read between the lines because I don’t write there.” This is true of all my communication. What I say can be taken at face value, and if there is ever any confusion, I’m happy to define my terms or restate something I have said. In my work example above, I responded to the request saying what needed to be done and that I would be happy to look at it again if the professor did not get added to the course automatically after the information was entered into the system. I had no intention of blaming anyone. I hope it wasn’t interpreted that way, but I’ve seen it happen. I don’t really care who did or didn’t do what as long as my system isn’t broken and we get the problem solved. I only bring up the past to show where the problem exists. I hope this makes sense. If not, please comment and ask questions.
To be continued…