There's this thing that I wouldn't call a distinctly autistic communication issue, but one that presents differently in autistic people and neurotypical people who just suck at communicating: assessing what someone is trying to ask when they ask a simple, seemingly straightforward question. Like if someone - a person you know is not familiar with hand-picking apples - presents you (who does know these things) with an apple with a very common abnormality, and asks you "what is this?" there are several questions they may be trying to ask.
What is this thing that I am holding?
What is this deformity called?
Is it safe for me to handle it bare-handed at all?
What do I do with it right now?
And the communication difference is that autistic people will tend to occam's razor this by assuming you mean the most simple question. That's an apple, you're holding an apple. If they point at the abnormality and clarify what is THIS that is ON the apple? You may clarify what the deformity is called by its latin name. They ask you what one should do with the apples like this? Well the ancient Phoenicians used to throw them at people whom they thought-
At this point, someone who isn't used to communicating with autistic people is likely to give up and storm off mid-sentence in order to go find someone who is capable of answering the right question from context clues. And for the sake of the example here, the next person is the second type: a neurotypical person who sucks at communicating.
You see, neurotypical people don't assume you mean to ask the most immediate and obvious question, but assess what you are trying to ask from situational context clues. The ones who suck at communicating just suck at doing this. So they may see someone approach, dangling an apple with an abnormality cautiously by the stem, and asking "what is this?"
From knowing that the asker isn't familiar with apple abnormalities, and from the way they're dangling it by the stem like they're afraid to touch it at all, the second person being asked assumes that "what is this?" means "is this dangerous to people?" And will answer "oh it's harmless :)" and won't try to assess whether there could be additional follow-up questions they could also want answers to.
So the asker who still doesn't know what to do with that thing will have to wrangle themselves through trying to guess how to get the right answer to the question they were trying to ask, which is easiest to do by suggesting the answer that is probably wrong but the only one that feels plausible.
"So do I just put this in the same basket with the other apples, like it's a normal apple?"
"Oh my god of course not. Don't let it touch any of the other ones. You have to toss it, or it will ruin the whole harvest."
Ah but you see, I have a strategy
The strategy is to answer all the questions at the same time while giving all the context
“Thats an apple with (name of the common abnormality and short description of what it does and how it forms and any consequences of eating it) its ok if you just touch it, Phoenicians used to throw them at people. but dont let it touch the other apples or it will ruin the whole harvest. I learned that the hard way (story time)”
Some say this is annoying, I think it’s a strategic way to avoid guessing games
That's probably the best option. Just try to give the answers one at a time, in order of "most important to know right now" to "least important to know in this immediate minute" and not like. alphabetically. Or all simultaneously on top of each other. Complete one sentence before you start the next one.
I will either answer "an apple?" like a question, meaning "please clarify".
Or. Just stare at them while I run through the possible meanings. After about 10-30 seconds, they will provide some sort of extra information.
The fun part is that this is just as difficult and frustrating to navigate from the other side. It's hard to verbally explain to someone how to do something that you just know how to do intuitively.
Imagine trying to explain how to breathe to someone who doesn't know how, has never known how, knows all the muscle groups and individual muscles by their latin names, but isn't aware which exact muscles you're supposed to move and to which direction, in order to make air to in and air go out. And they're panicking right in front of you because they are going to suffocate and die unless you unlock the exact correct answer in the perfectly worded order RIGHT NOW.
I think people should just ask the proper question they want answered in the first place.
Do you have any idea how different the world would look like if "just perform everything perfectly with peak efficiency, no flaws and no mistakes" was an option that's always available.
I think there's an extreme difference between Maximum Efficiency and just asking a slightly more complex question.
For example, instead of asking "what is this" the apple holder can ask "this apple looks weird, do I put it with the others?"
See how easy that is? To ask more specifically than "what is this?" How much clearer it is?
Why does there need to be addee vagueness?? Why is it supposedly "no flaws or mistakes ever" when the process is *deliberately* slowed and worsened?
Ngl homunculus I think you sound like you're trying to argue for the neurotypical side of things
That's the core of the problem: for allistic people, the vague open-ended question is the most efficient way of asking, as it has the most wiggle room for the other person to assess what is the most important question to answer. By asking "what is this?" while presenting what appears to be a weird apple, the other person has space to answer "this is a weird apple with a specific flaw", but there's space to answer a different question, for example "that's not an apple, that's a really fucked-up looking tennis ball."
It's like putting on an item of clothing. A big loose shirt can fit many people even if it isn't a perfect fit, but having to answer an extremely specific question ("what is the right way to handle this apple that I am currently holding in my hand?") with a completely different answer ("that's a tennis ball") is like having someone toss you a shirt and you try to put it on without realising that it's actually a pair of skinny jeans.
I'm trying to argue from the allistic side of things because I'm still somewhat sure that I'm the only one in my family that isn't on the spectrum. I got tested for it multiple times and didn't have it. I'm the only one in the family who was tested for it at any point.
i don't think this is a good argument.
"this apple looks weird, do i put it with the others?" could just as well be answered with "no, because that's not an apple, that's a really fucked up looking tennis ball". if the point of asking a question is getting a useful answer, then leaving room for the other person to guess your question incorrectly and answer a completely unrelated question is just wasting everyone's time. which you yourself clearly demonstrated in your example scenario in the first post.
(if you don't actually know what question you're trying to get answered, then your first task is figuring that out, rather than making someone else play guessing games with you.)
i also disagree with your point in general. there's a reason that emergency personnel are trained to ask very specific questions and be very clear in their communication, and it's because it is just objectively more effective and reliable.
clear communication is a skill, just like any other, and one which is worth practicing.
The fact they have to be trained to do that, instead of simply doing so intuitively, was kind of partially the point I was making. People don't just naturally communicate in the most objectively effective and reliable way possible. Allistic people can be taught to speak, but it still requires teaching.
