Would this work at least as an early crude hypothesis of how neurotypicals function?
Neurotypicals like social mingling primarily because they play a constant game of social status points, both in the eyes of others (that is real status) and just feeling like getting status (this is more like self-esteem). This should not be understood as a harsh machiavellian cruel game. Usually not. Often it is very warm and friendly. For example, we on the spectrum often finding things like greeting each other superfluous. Needless custom. You notice when people arrive or when not they will talk to you when they want something. But for neurotypicals exchanging mutual warm greetings makes sense, it is a mutual reassurance or reinforcement of each others status. Sometimes people will ignore someone’s greeting, even not shake an extended hand, that will be seen as a rude move to reduce the status of the other, as it is embarrassing. This is rudely dominant move they only pull if they are angry at each other. However, it will more often happen that there is some community, group, like a Toastmasters meeting or the local Linux user club or something and someone arrives and hands out a warmish greeting to the whole group but gets only nods in return, or a very short hi, this usually means “you are an outsider, newcomer, not fully accepted in this community yet, so while we don’t reduce your status we are cautious about affirming it either, we stay noncommittant until you prove yourself”. But then again someone will often be very warm to the newcomer, because acting as a mentor of noobs raises one status inside the group. It a friendly, helpful but clearly dominant move over the newcomer (let me show you the ropes here is the subconscious message), it also reaffirms one as a central member of the group as people who are themselves newbies would not do it, and as new and new people get into the group the people who mentored them cal slowly drift into leadership.
But greetings are just a simple example of the many ways neurotypicals enjoy playing status games. Again it is not a harsh thing, often very warm. But their constant social mingling, constant “purring” with each other is nothing but a set of microtransactions in status. All this small talk thing, plus the body language etc.
To enjoy gaining a score is a general human trait, even we on the spectrum do enjoy getting on the high score table in arcade games or levelling up in an RPG videgame or becoming a thane in Skyrim, we just don’t notice how neurotypicals keep doing this all the time. All the social niceties boil down on handing out a micropayment of positive status, any tiny notion of kindness acts as so, the basic small talk of two random people meeting at a garden party will be feeling out each others status as a first step, getting liked by micropaying status (“Wow, that sounds like you have an interesting job!”) in exchange for liking or raising your own status by a bit of boasting etc. And that is the nicer part, the uglier part is when people try to reduce each others scores, that is where bad blood comes from.
Am I on a remotely right track here?
Does the statement “nerds / neckbeards often have poor social skills” unpack into “people on the spectrum not even noticing that neurotypicals don’t just mindlessly follow social customs, but they are involved in a status micropayment exchange” ?
Any article or book that helps me go on in this line of thought?
That sounds like a subset of neurotypical behavior. I’m neurotypical and from the very first sentence (“Neurotypicals like social mingling primarily because they play a constant game of social status points, both in the eyes of others (that is real status) and just feeling like getting status (this is more like self-esteem).”) I found it contrary to my experience. Which is not to say it is wrong, and it certainly looks like behavior I have seen, but it kind of suggests that there is One Neurotypical Experience as opposed to a spectrum.
That is reading the initial “neurotypicals” as “all/most neurotypicals” as opposed to “some neurotypicals” or “some subset of neurotypicals.” I think you are trying to describe typical neurotypical behavior, so I would read that “neurotypicals” as trying to describe how most neurotypicals behave.
But I am not the most central example of a neurotypical, so others may find it a more accurate description of their social experiences. I don’t like social mingling, and I avoid most games of social status points. My extroversion score is 7 out of 100, which is likely a factor in not seeing myself in your description of neurotypicals.
2. Does the statement “nerds / neckbeards often have poor social skills” unpack into “people on the spectrum not even noticing that neurotypicals don’t just mindlessly follow social customs, but they are involved in a status micropayment exchange” ?
There seem to be several assumptions built into that unpacking. For example, it suggests that all/most nerds are on the spectrum. My characterization of neurotypical socialization would include mindlessly following social customs as well as enjoying the social game. I don’t think highly social neurotypicals would describe their behavior as a “status micropayment exchange”; that seems like the wrong metaphor and suggests the dominant model as a fixed-sum status game, whereas many (most?) social interactions have no need for an exchange of status points.
Even when a social status point game is in play, I would expect more interactions to involve the recognition of point totals rather than an exchange. “Mutual reassurance or reinforcement of each others status” seems on point.
If the above is the start of a hypothesis, it seems to me that it links greetings and status point exchange too strongly. Greetings are rarely an occasion to gain or lose points, although they may be occasions to discover the current score.
“Pinging” is a metaphor I have seen used productively in these attempts to explain neurotypical social behavior. The greeting is a ping, a mutual recognition that someone is there and potentially responsive to interaction, potentially also exchanging some basic status information.
If you say Bob likes X because of Y, what do you mean with it? Do you mean that if Y wouldn’t be there Bob wouldn’t like X?
I don’t think that there a good reason to believe that if you take status away no neurotically would engage in social mingling or like engaging in it.
Apart from that “status” is a word that’s quite abstract. It’s much more something “map” than “territory”. That produces danger to get into too vague to be wrong territory.
Apart from that “status” is a word that’s quite abstract. It’s much more something “map” than “territory”.
Let’s get more meta here. Usually the map-terrain distinction is used to describe how human minds interpret the chunks of reality that are not man-made. When we are talking about something that arises from the behavior of humans, how can we draw that distinction. Plato’s classic “What is justice?” is map or terrain? Here the terrain is in human minds too, as justice exists only inside minds and nowhere else, so the distinction seems to be more like is it the grand shared map or a more private map of maps? And the same with status. It does not exist outside the human perception of it. Similar to money, esp. paper/computer number money.
I don’t think that there a good reason to believe that if you take status away no neurotically would engage in social mingling or like engaging in it.
I will consider it a typo, assuming you meant neurotypicals like I did i.e. people outside the autism spectrum, or in other words non-geeks. I got the idea from here. If status microtransactions are so important…
Status is a confusing term, unless it’s understood as something one does. You may be low in status, but play high, and vice versa. … We always like it when a tramp is mistaken for the boss, or the boss for a tramp. … I should really talk about dominance and submission, but I’d create a resistance.
That means that dominance and submission map more directly to the territory than status does.
The author doesn’t argue that people care about mutually reinforcement of each other status as being high but that people also consciously make moves to submit and place themselves at a low status position.
The text invalidates your idea that people engage primarily in social interaction to maximize the amount of status.
You don’t pick that up if you make the error of not treating status as a model but as reality. Reality is complex. Models simplify reality. Sometimes the simplification keeps the essential elements of what you want to describe. Other times it doesn’t.
I will consider it a typo, assuming you meant neurotypicals like I did i.e. people outside the autism spectrum, or in other words non-geeks.
Yes, it’s a typo likely because my spellchecker didn’t know “neurotypicals”.
Would this work at least as an early crude hypothesis of how neurotypicals function?
Neurotypicals like social mingling primarily because they play a constant game of social status points, both in the eyes of others (that is real status) and just feeling like getting status (this is more like self-esteem). This should not be understood as a harsh machiavellian cruel game. Usually not. Often it is very warm and friendly. For example, we on the spectrum often finding things like greeting each other superfluous. Needless custom. You notice when people arrive or when not they will talk to you when they want something. But for neurotypicals exchanging mutual warm greetings makes sense, it is a mutual reassurance or reinforcement of each others status. Sometimes people will ignore someone’s greeting, even not shake an extended hand, that will be seen as a rude move to reduce the status of the other, as it is embarrassing. This is rudely dominant move they only pull if they are angry at each other. However, it will more often happen that there is some community, group, like a Toastmasters meeting or the local Linux user club or something and someone arrives and hands out a warmish greeting to the whole group but gets only nods in return, or a very short hi, this usually means “you are an outsider, newcomer, not fully accepted in this community yet, so while we don’t reduce your status we are cautious about affirming it either, we stay noncommittant until you prove yourself”. But then again someone will often be very warm to the newcomer, because acting as a mentor of noobs raises one status inside the group. It a friendly, helpful but clearly dominant move over the newcomer (let me show you the ropes here is the subconscious message), it also reaffirms one as a central member of the group as people who are themselves newbies would not do it, and as new and new people get into the group the people who mentored them cal slowly drift into leadership.
But greetings are just a simple example of the many ways neurotypicals enjoy playing status games. Again it is not a harsh thing, often very warm. But their constant social mingling, constant “purring” with each other is nothing but a set of microtransactions in status. All this small talk thing, plus the body language etc.
To enjoy gaining a score is a general human trait, even we on the spectrum do enjoy getting on the high score table in arcade games or levelling up in an RPG videgame or becoming a thane in Skyrim, we just don’t notice how neurotypicals keep doing this all the time. All the social niceties boil down on handing out a micropayment of positive status, any tiny notion of kindness acts as so, the basic small talk of two random people meeting at a garden party will be feeling out each others status as a first step, getting liked by micropaying status (“Wow, that sounds like you have an interesting job!”) in exchange for liking or raising your own status by a bit of boasting etc. And that is the nicer part, the uglier part is when people try to reduce each others scores, that is where bad blood comes from.
Am I on a remotely right track here?
Does the statement “nerds / neckbeards often have poor social skills” unpack into “people on the spectrum not even noticing that neurotypicals don’t just mindlessly follow social customs, but they are involved in a status micropayment exchange” ?
Any article or book that helps me go on in this line of thought?
That sounds like a subset of neurotypical behavior. I’m neurotypical and from the very first sentence (“Neurotypicals like social mingling primarily because they play a constant game of social status points, both in the eyes of others (that is real status) and just feeling like getting status (this is more like self-esteem).”) I found it contrary to my experience. Which is not to say it is wrong, and it certainly looks like behavior I have seen, but it kind of suggests that there is One Neurotypical Experience as opposed to a spectrum.
That is reading the initial “neurotypicals” as “all/most neurotypicals” as opposed to “some neurotypicals” or “some subset of neurotypicals.” I think you are trying to describe typical neurotypical behavior, so I would read that “neurotypicals” as trying to describe how most neurotypicals behave.
But I am not the most central example of a neurotypical, so others may find it a more accurate description of their social experiences. I don’t like social mingling, and I avoid most games of social status points. My extroversion score is 7 out of 100, which is likely a factor in not seeing myself in your description of neurotypicals.
There seem to be several assumptions built into that unpacking. For example, it suggests that all/most nerds are on the spectrum. My characterization of neurotypical socialization would include mindlessly following social customs as well as enjoying the social game. I don’t think highly social neurotypicals would describe their behavior as a “status micropayment exchange”; that seems like the wrong metaphor and suggests the dominant model as a fixed-sum status game, whereas many (most?) social interactions have no need for an exchange of status points.
Even when a social status point game is in play, I would expect more interactions to involve the recognition of point totals rather than an exchange. “Mutual reassurance or reinforcement of each others status” seems on point.
If the above is the start of a hypothesis, it seems to me that it links greetings and status point exchange too strongly. Greetings are rarely an occasion to gain or lose points, although they may be occasions to discover the current score.
“Pinging” is a metaphor I have seen used productively in these attempts to explain neurotypical social behavior. The greeting is a ping, a mutual recognition that someone is there and potentially responsive to interaction, potentially also exchanging some basic status information.
If you say Bob likes X because of Y, what do you mean with it? Do you mean that if Y wouldn’t be there Bob wouldn’t like X?
I don’t think that there a good reason to believe that if you take status away no neurotically would engage in social mingling or like engaging in it.
Apart from that “status” is a word that’s quite abstract. It’s much more something “map” than “territory”. That produces danger to get into too vague to be wrong territory.
Let’s get more meta here. Usually the map-terrain distinction is used to describe how human minds interpret the chunks of reality that are not man-made. When we are talking about something that arises from the behavior of humans, how can we draw that distinction. Plato’s classic “What is justice?” is map or terrain? Here the terrain is in human minds too, as justice exists only inside minds and nowhere else, so the distinction seems to be more like is it the grand shared map or a more private map of maps? And the same with status. It does not exist outside the human perception of it. Similar to money, esp. paper/computer number money.
I will consider it a typo, assuming you meant neurotypicals like I did i.e. people outside the autism spectrum, or in other words non-geeks. I got the idea from here. If status microtransactions are so important…
(to be continued gotta go now)
If you look at the link you posted it argues:
That means that dominance and submission map more directly to the territory than status does.
The author doesn’t argue that people care about mutually reinforcement of each other status as being high but that people also consciously make moves to submit and place themselves at a low status position.
The text invalidates your idea that people engage primarily in social interaction to maximize the amount of status.
You don’t pick that up if you make the error of not treating status as a model but as reality. Reality is complex. Models simplify reality. Sometimes the simplification keeps the essential elements of what you want to describe. Other times it doesn’t.
Yes, it’s a typo likely because my spellchecker didn’t know “neurotypicals”.