I constantly struggle because my brain has made connections that are not obvious to others, and when I try to guide them through my thinking I confuse them with details or by skipping explanations that seem obvious to me but completely surprising to anyone else.
About half the time I jump to the conclusion then hit a brick wall because I've assumed things about common ground, background knowledge and thought processes.
Then the other half of the time I decide I need to explain properly and it's like the scene in The Big Bang Theory where Penny asks Sheldon to "teach her some physics" and he begins "It's a warm summer evening in ancient Greece..."
@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd All I can tell you is that, whenever I write anything, I finish writing it and then edit it to flip the order to make the conclusion the introduction. This works just about every time. Harder to do in conversation, of course.
@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd I often go with: "you busy? do you want the whole story of just the executive summary?"
If they answer "whole story", it's a pleasure to let them have it. And possibly a lesson learned for them. 😂
If they just want the cliff notes, I pretty much go with the advice given in the old 70s book "the one minute manager", which basically says people want the conclusion and easy-tu-understand stories with no nuances.
@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd My friends used to use a system where I had to tap the side of my nose when I jumped topics. If they thought I had jumped topics then they would do the nose tap and I could confirm or explain further. 🤪
But I have also heard a flatmate tell another flatmate to "just smile and nod when she talks". 🤷
@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd I simply start off with a “so, from my perspective, I see it like this…” and that usually gets them hook line and sinker every time.
@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd I always start with “this will be confusing at first but hang in there”. There’s a trick to saying it without sounding condescending. I don’t know what the trick is, I just get it right some of the time 😅.
Anyway… That intro sort of prepares them to take in more info than they are used to. I think they perceive it as some kind of challenge to rise up to.
In my experience, you have to work in small increments. If too much imagination is required, you lose them. ...which, of course, makes it very difficult to convey anything really transformative, or that builds on a lot of different ideas.
I think what has sometimes worked is if you can break your idea down into a set of steps, each of which involves only one or two change, starting from some standard, widely-understood thing.
Like... it's much easier to explain serverless peer-to-peer software to people who are familiar with the fediverse. I've also tried to explain fedi as being similar to email (there's no one central service; you pick a service, and then you can talk to anyone on any other service), but I'm not sure how well that has worked.
(Aside on the link: wow, that thing about writing the outline first, before you even know what you're going to learn... that resonates. I still don't understand how anyone could do it in that order. ...and I usually just got stuck there.)
I think being self deprecating helps, although that can make it too easy for people to be dismissive. It also helps if I’m sure what I want to say, have rehearsed & made it concise.
I also have trouble knowing when something that is obvious to me is not to others, but the reverse too. Sometimes I go into too much detail & people are offended because, der!
@EVDHmn@woozle@CynAq@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd
Oh no! 😂😂😂. I realise that I’ve made it sound like everything I say is well planned. It’s not! I like conversations in real time with people I “get”. But if there’s a complex issue that needs to be discussed & I’m not sure that we’re thinking the same way, I need to prepare & rehearse.
@Susan60@woozle@CynAq@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd
Susan lol it wasn’t you I read all the options and opinions when I first woke and was like well I kinda identify all over the place I try to adapt like a water element but I have to not let myself get distracted lol. I just thought to myself ok no time for thinking programming methods on the fly with meta cognition .
Yeah it’s weird because I have to ask myself how I really do feel lol.
In therapy years ago I learned that I think without considering how my feelings influence my thinking. Then I had to work on “getting in touch” with my feelings, partly through recognising what was going on in my body. This was without any discussion or recognition of autism. I now think I’m more aware of my feelings than some/many autistic people, but hadn’t realised how out of touch I was generally. I’d feel vaguely uncomfortable, but couldn’t narrow it down.
@Susan60@woozle@CynAq@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd
Wow thats incredible…it takes awhile to get there. It’s forever a work in progress for me. It’s like a mind body embodiment and seeing yourself in realtime but from different perspectives and then combine. There some tricks to exponential change I maybe found. I just mean some choices you make have almost have propagation proponents for them.
@EVDHmn@woozle@CynAq@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd
😂😂😂😂
One of the problems in finding a therapist is finding one who is smart enough & either already knows enough or is willing to learn, & from you. If they’ve got their own ego issues about such things, they’re not up to the task.
@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd It depends on the idea you want to discuss, but an approach that I use (and that also helps me with brainstorming & gaming things out) is to step back and try to figure out the following and then run through it with them:
What is the problem?
Who are all of the stakeholders?
What are the stakeholders' interests/needs?
What is the proposed solution?
How does the proposed solution address the problem and all of their concerns?
Where do the stakeholders' interests clash?
How are conflicts resolved?
Are there any potential stumbling blocks or unknowns down the line (i.e., externalities)?
If I'm analysing an issue I try to strip it back to the most basic tasks or processes involved, to the point that the list isn't necessarily clear what the goal /issue/action is. By that I mean, for example, rather than "install this specific software," it's "prepare tools & work location/environment". With that, I'm able to both make connections to seemingly unrelated problems, which can result in novel problem-solving, and explain it in simple terms to others without them needed to read my mind to follow the unspoken train of thought that brought me to that point.
Basically breaking everything down to the most basic core components and processes. It gets at a core belief I have: that there are very few things that require truly specialist skills or knowledge; most things are the same tasks, it's just figuring out the tasks needed and making connections.
@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd you could keep summarising in half the text, until you get one sentence. That would be the center of your idea. Then you can start putting the rest of pieces back in, in decreasing importance.
I think it's key to communicate your core idea most clearly, even if it means a butchered simplification. People learn as you fix the broken pieces of the explanation.
I prefer it in writing so I can get my thoughts out without being thrown off by the other person's reaction.
For important things, I do it in writing and get another person or two to review it and edit it. I never get it right otherwise.
For less important things I don't have an editor for, the standard "Abstract, details, conclusions" like you see in a science paper usually works okay. People who really don't have time can skim the abstract and the conclusion and be done with it. For people who want details they can drill in and see them.
@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd I’ve also been told that my explanation style leans too far into being bottom-up (I start from details and then zoom out).
And that confuses me because well - I’m walking people through the details that helped me piece together the high-level conclusions!
I always feel like I should let people figure it out themselves, but then they get confused and frustrated and ask why I’m dumping irrelevant details on them.. 🥲🥲
@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd
It strikes me that you are expecting people to think. Most people don't like doing that. They much prefer to have a conclusion, followed by what ever proofs are required to satisfy that conclusion.
@pathfinder@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd this, exactly, I start with the conclusion, a comment to "bear with me here" and THEN go back to the beginning with the low level stuff. Now that they have context (my conclusion), it makes more sense to them.
@mariyadelano@actuallyautistic@actuallyadhd It's hard. I process bottom-up as well but I know that many people don't usually. So I try to see it from their perspective and start with what I think they know or can refer to. While walking them through "the process", I ask them questions to see if I need to explain anything.
What I try to do now it to start with the context ("why do you need to know this"), and check in with the person whether they understand the context.
Then I go down some levels to a basic principle, but before I explain it, I contextualise it too ("this is what makes x possible" or whatever).
And if possible, I divide the explanation into discrete units, stopping after each step to give them a chance to try for themselves, or discuss, or have a break.
Most people don't absorb new information in more than one step at a time, without a chance to put it into practice. That might mean they get to ask a question, or you ask them to come up with examples other than what you've just provided. Anything to get them out of passive listening and into active thinking mode.