I think there’s a good chance that this is how I came to reply to your post “Concepts are difficult”. The post (near)began with “What is a friend? What makes you romantic?” and there are a lot of question marks in the rest of that post.

Maybe try writing another post in such a format that it has a lot of questions in it as bait, and see how many Aspies bite.

And now I have a question for you, about my reply to you on “Concepts are difficult”.

I have just read the following “AS individuals may demonstrate seamless mixtures of knowledge and personal accounts in their written or oral responses to questions. They run on and on, blending content, personal reflections, and autobiographical illustrations. They do so perhaps because they are not aware of the purpose of the questions.” (From “Twice-Exceptional and Special Populations of Gifted Students” Susan Baum, Sally M. Reis.)

When you read my reply on “Concepts are difficult”, did it seem to you that I was unaware of the purpose of the questions? I think not as you said it was “a well thought out reply.”

This to me looks like the difference in thinking style between NT and Aspie that Rachel described as association in her post on “Mixing special interests and camouflage”, or what Temple Grandin means when she says her mind works like a web browser. “It can also go off on a tangent in the same way as a Web browser.” It’s as if we start thinking, and when we hit a idea or a word or something, we are compelled to click on that link and follow it.

I think another possible factor is that an Aspie may feel that not to give a full reply is like withholding information, and that is like lying by omission.

I did start to go off on a grammar tangent while typing this, but I have restrained myself and deleted that part. So I think self congratulations are in order.

Hi Miss Anon,

My questions regarding what friends were and how romance worked were partly rhetorical, and partly genuine questions that I wanted people to respond too.
Of course, that makes no sense – you can’t have it both ways, and I suspect it highlights that being rhetorical is something I’m not naturally gifted at. Perhaps the best way to put it was that I hoped Aspie people would respond with their take on what those questions meant to them, yet I deliberately styled the questions so I thought they looked rhetorical, because that’s how I think a typical person would have phrased them. That also means that I was using some camouflage to make my article look a little more normal. All of this was done without too much thought at the time.

So I think it’s great that you answered the rhetorical questions – it backs up that something that I thought must be an Aspie trait is encountered by other Aspies too.

Did I think you were unaware of the purpose of the questions? Well, as I said above, it’s difficult to define exactly what the purpose was. When I read your reply it didn’t occur to me that you’d hit the I must answer rhetorical questions button – it was only your reply here that made me realise that. Your response did feel very familiar though – it’s the sort of response I would have given myself if I was replying to a similar article.

My comments about it being a “well thought out reply” were made because you had clearly taken time to think and write your thoughts – this was more than a 30 second brain dump. It really had nothing to do with whether you had or had not reacted in a certain way to the questions. I’m still at the point with this blog that I feel enormously privileged when someone takes the time and effort to reply like that.

Your reply here also falls into that camp, so I owe you thanks once more.

I also agree with the lying by omission comment. See – the fact that I felt like I had to acknowledge you’d written that is the proof. Have I missed anything?

Oh yes – well done for not going off on a tangent.

Keep the wonderful comments coming – the more I get, the better the picture I, and hopefully those of you who read them have.

“My questions regarding what friends were and how romance worked were partly rhetorical, and partly genuine questions that I wanted people to respond too.”

Well that makes sense, at the beginning of the post to state the questions that the rest of the post is discussing.

So now I am still puzzled. When I replied to your post on concepts like romance, I thought that my reply was relevant to the issues raised on your post, I thought I did understand the purpose of the questions and replied in a relevant way. But this book quote that I posted before “They do so perhaps because they are not aware of the purpose of the questions” has me thinking perhaps I am missing something that only a NT (dammit I just hit that grammar tangent again) can see.

Hi Anon,

There wasn’t really a right or wrong response to the questions. As I said in my previous comment, it’s hard to define exactly what I was trying to say with the questions.

All answers and interpretations are both welcome and valid to me – they always are, that’s just how I see the world.

Perhaps if I didn’t have Aperger’s I’d feel differently. Perhaps my questions would have more of a defined purpose, and therefore the answers that folks like you give would seem to miss the point.

But genuinely, I take your responses in the spirit they were intended. The questions weren’t designed to illicit a specific response, and your answers didn’t feel like they were at all wrong to me. Perhaps that’s just the Aspie way.

Does that help to set things straight for you?

James

I think so. Specifically WRT that book quote, I’m not so bothered about whether you thought my answers were wrong or right, but whether they were relevant to the topic of discussion. I am glad you said my answers didn’t feel wrong to you.

The quote about AS people being “unaware of the purpose of the questions” really bothers me. I hate to think that I am missing the point.