Is this what we’re all living for today?

Just look at all those hungry mouths we have to feed
Take a look at all the suffering we breed
So many lonely faces scattered all around
Searching for what they need

Is this the world we created?
what did we do it for?
Is this the world we invaded?
Against the law?
So it seems in the end
Is this what we’re all living for today?
The world that we created.

You know that every day a helpless child is born
Who needs some loving care inside a happy home
Somewhere a wealthy man is sitting on his throne
Waiting for life to go by.

Is this the world we created
we made it on our own
Is this the world we devastated
Right to the bone?
If there’s a God in the sky looking down
What can he think of what we’ve done
To the world that he created?

Lovely words – I hope you agree – and absolutely laden with sentiment that I find irresistible these days.

They are the words to a song by Queen with perhaps an obvious title, Is this the world we created…?, which was written by Freddie Mercury some twenty five years or so ago. For perhaps the quintessential performance of the song, click here to see Freddie and Brian perform it at Wembley Stadium in 1986.

Mentioning music in my blog is a first, but it isn’t for the lack of trying. I’ve started a number of articles about the relationship between me and music since I began writing here, and yet somehow none of them have captured the emotion well enough. This isn’t going to be the article I’ve been struggling to write either – that will have to wait – but hopefully this piece will start to give you a sense of just how much music – the right sort of music – works on me.

Is this the world we created…? only popped back into my life a couple of days ago, after a hiatus of perhaps fifteen years. I’d forgotten about it’s very existence, and only rediscovered it again by accident, on one of my follow-the-link sessions whilst using the Internet.

Having clicked on the video link, the opening chords sent a chill down my spine, and made the hairs on my arms prick up. I knew this song. I knew it was good, but I had forgotten just how good it was.

I was in something of a sad and reflective mood – I’d been reading with some disbelief how it was nearly eighteen years since Freddie had died. I found that incredible.

I remember hearing about his death almost like it was yesterday. For me it was one of those moments that stays with you forever. I was at sixth-form college, and I’d heard the news on breakfast television, and then again on the radio on my walkman on the bus to college. I remember feeling sad, and disappointed that someone so wonderfully charismatic and influential had been taken away at such a shockingly young age – Freddie was only 45 when he died.

When I watched the above video clip for the first time a couple of days ago, the sense of loss I felt was immediate. In two and a half minutes I had been reduced to big choking tears. I watched it a couple more times, and really cried hard for a few minutes.

What was I crying about? A very good question. I felt the loss of something. Was it the loss of a teen idol all those years ago making itself finally felt? Perhaps there was an element of that there, but that wasn’t really it.

Was I mourning my loss of youth? Well, youth clearly has a bearing on this. The music brought back very hazy memories of feeling young and energetic, but also of feeling fundamentally lost, alone and unhappy in a world that made little sense to me.

I think the music had brought back how I was really feeling at that time in my life – a feeling that I kept very well hidden, for fear of, well, I’m not sure what. My peers all seemed to be happy and relaxed with life. They were all starting to look for independence, and were achieving it by going to colleges on the other side of town by bus and by applying for university or planning to go travelling around the world. I too was doing this, but primarily because that’s what everyone else was doing, and I was filled with with a feeling of barely controllable terror much of the time.

I’ve been quite teary on a number of occasions over the last few days. Perhaps this is because I’ve had a bit of alone time in the evenings for a change that have allowed me the luxury of thinking about things in detail. This is a natural conclusion to the anxious and down feelings that I’ve experienced over the last week or two, and I feel lucky to have had the opportunity to try and express and deal with it, finally.

Going back to Freddie’s lyrics, I can’t help but notice just how well they sit with my own view of the world these days. I’m sure they didn’t back when I was a teenager.

It seems to me that there is hard-core logic in the words. Their truth is self evident, yet so wonderfully understated, allowing you to fill out the detail yourself using your own thoughts and experiences of the world. This too may go some way to explaining why the song makes me cry.

The world didn’t make much sense to me at seventeen, and it still doesn’t today at thirty-six.

This song, however is as relevant now as it was twenty-five years ago. Brilliantly simple, yet powerfully touching and perfectly executed.

What more could you want from music?

Tools of the trade

In the front left pocket of my jeans is a pen. And my mobile phone. Oh, and a tiny little USB thumb drive with data for things I’m working on. That last item is a new addition in the last couple of months.

In the front right pocket of my jeans are all my coins, and some used tissues. I know. The tissues should really be in the bin. If I need to take my watch off – like when I bath the kids, for instance – it goes in that pocket too, despite me wearing it on my left wrist.

In the back right pocket of my jeans are receipts that I’ve not dealt with yet. The back left pocket of my jeans is always empty.

In my coat, the left hand inside pocket has my wallet, and my list book. The inside right pocket has any keys I happen to have with me.

Predictable.

Comfortable.

Of course, when I’m at work, the pen, the list book and my phone will all be in front of me on my work table – but that’s predictable too.

I’m fussy about the tools I use.

The pen is a Fisher Space Pen, in brushed chrome. I love its simple lines, its small size when shut, and the feel of the brushed metal in my hand. I can of course depend on it to write on anything too.

The list book is a Italian leather-bound lined CIAK Notebook. Its small enough to fit into my coat pocket, yet large enough to be useful. The paper is thick and a lovely cream colour. It is a pleasure to use.

I carry the pen and the book because I need a list to help me organise my day. The list tells a tale of predictability too.

Each day gets it’s own double page in the book.

At the top of right hand page, I write the date:

Wednesday 20090806

My head likes the logic of the date format  use, which has come from my life in IT. If you view the date as a number in its own right, then the number will always be bigger than it was yesterday. I always underline it too. This date format can have hours minutes and seconds added to it too without the incremental pattern breaking, though clearly this level of detail isn’t needed here.

Below the date is a blank line, and then a list of items that I need to do for work that day. I leave a space at the start of the line for a priority number that I can add later, and then I draw a little check box, and then write the task. I use a number of shorthand tricks:

□ #5437: @PC – What needed?
□ Call @TG – place order?
□ AHU4: Fault. Raise call?

At the bottom of the right hand page I write a letter to indicate which shift I am on at work, and then my actual start and end times. Below this I’ll note any time taken for lunch, and next to the time worked I’ll tot up the total for the day, when it’s time for me to go home:

L: 0945 – 1815    8h15m
15m lunch

Above this, I leave a blank line, and then write my list of tasks for the day that are non work related, back up the page towards the other set of tasks.

With my lists written, I can then prioritise. The priorities go before the checkbox, as I mentioned above. I use the following:

* 1 2 3

I hand draw the star as a five pointer, and it generally indicates something I really have to get done. You can guess how priorities 1 to 3 stack up after this.

Occasionally I draw a star with a circle round it. This is used rarely and indicates something that really really really needs to get done that day

I don’t always tackle the list in the order of priority I have assigned. They are my rules, so I can break them as much as I like too. Generally, if I have a 1 or 2 priority item that I know will only take a few minutes to complete, I’ll do that before I tackle a star item that I know will take longer. I have no hard and fast rules about whether work items should be tackled before non-work items.

When I complete an item, the check box for it gets a tick, and I feel a degree of satisfaction.

If some event of interest happens at work, that I might need to refer back to at a later date, I write it between the two lists on the right hand page.

As the day progresses, I’ll start to use the left hand page in the list book. This serves multiple purposes.

Firstly, starting at the bottom, and working up, I’ll list items I’ve spent:

□ Cash in +50
□ Lunch 4.23c
□ Tesco 78.45d -> 16 clothes + groceries

There’s that shorthand again. The ‘c’ or ‘d’ after the amount indicates cash or debit card, and I categorise how our money is spent (Hey – they are just more lists when it comes right down to it). Eventually this all feeds into Wesabe, where I track our spending habits. At that point, the check box will get a tick.

At the top of the left hand page, I’ll often add events happening that day:

* @1030: Team conf call
* Collect A from Nursery on way home

The rest of the page is used for whatever it is needed for. This could be work or non-work related notes, or more frequently sub lists where a work-related list item is broken down into smaller items, each with their own check boxes so I know what I’ve got done.

Weekends are of course rather simpler. There is just one list, and no work times to note.

So there you have it.

You know, until I actually wrote about it just now, I really wasn’t aware of just how much effort I’ve put into devising this system. If you’re not autistic then you’ll probably think I’m crazy to have thought about this so much. If you’re on the spectrum, then I hope that you’ll see just how much order it adds to my life, and can appreciate how much it helps me to get things done.

The polymaths

I’ve just had another of those moments where something comes into sharp focus and puts a new perspective on my life.

This one surrounds work.

I’ve been in the world of work  for the best part of fifteen years now, and over that time I’ve observed that many of my peers appear to be polymaths.

Nothing struck me as strange about this. All I was doing was comparing those I worked with to myself. Compared to me, a large number of the more able of my peers have excelled at a much wider range of skills than I have. I have accepted this as a universal truth, and at each new job I’ve been unsurprised to find people that were brilliant at many different technical skills. I dubbed these people as polymaths, because whilst I see their existence to be expected these days, I see their technical ability to be far wider-ranging than that which I consider average.

When changing jobs I’ve always been faced with interview questions such as “how are you with such and such a skill?” in reference to a skill area outside of my core competences, and I’ve always replied that I haven’t really had a chance to learn that skill, because it was always someone elses job, and jealously guarded. And that is how it has always seemed to me – except that if I really think about it now, the chaps that I would term as polymaths tended to have these skills despite it being someone elses job.

Maybe I assumed they’d learned those other skills in a previous job, where it wasn’t someone elses responsibility.

The problem with this picture, which is one that I’ve held my whole adult life, is that it is wrong.

Firstly, I think I need to point out that I’ve realised that my polymaths aren’t the wonderfully gifted individuals that I thought they were.

They are intelligent, for sure. But where I’ve been getting this wrong is my definition of what average is. Being unaware of my AS until very recently, I’ve always considered my own level of skill to be a good basis for establishing the average. I’m aware of my relative intelligence level from the point of view of exam ability and from an IQ test I took many years ago. I’ve used these factors my whole adult life to form the basis of where an average level of intelligence and technical ability lies.

But my assumptions have been wrong.

Whilst I may have an above average IQ and above average exam results, my ability to undertake work cannot be extrapolated from this information in the same way as an ordinary neurotypical person. I’m not neurotypical, and problems with my executive function and social interaction skills mean that I do not work to the ability of a neurotypical person with my IQ and exam results. This is new thinking for me.

So I’ve suddenly realised that I have gone through my life assuming that my ability to perform at work is that of a neurotypical person with my IQ and exam ability. And so my peers at work who clearly outperform me got dubbed as being polymaths – brilliant (from my point of view) in many technical streams at once. The truth is that they probably have a similar IQ to me and they probably did similarly academically to me too. These are smart people, without a doubt, but they aren’t geniuses – they are just neurotypical.

I can see another perspective on this too.

The reason that I have never learnt the many technical skills that many of my peers do is not because I am average and they are geniuses. Neither is it really because of my usual excuse that the job was someone elses and hence I didn’t have the opportunity.

It’s that I haven’t got room in my head to learn it. Let me explain:

My working memory isn’t like that of a neurotypical person. It’s small and very detailed.

This means that when I get down to a task – particularly an investigative one – I tend to do very well. I don’t see the big picture around it though, and when I move on to the next task, the specialist skills I have learnt for the task are mostly wiped out within a matter of weeks. Frequently I’ll be asked about some work I did a few weeks previously, and I’ll struggle to remember not only what I did, but how I went about it. This often produces strange looks from people – something which I’ve always felt embarrassed about, but I’ve never really considered why they might be giving the reaction they do until now.

They – of course – don’t have a problem with remembering the technical skills they were using in detail a few weeks ago. They have room in their working memory for many things at the same time, and can call each of these things up as and when needed. This is why they are good at many technical skills at the same time.

And this too, is why I’m struggling somewhat in my current job. There is just too much that I need to know. When I need to concentrate on one area of the system for a while, then I do just fine. But I’m expected to know and manage the whole system – and it’s huge, with many different technologies in it – and that feels extremely difficult to do. It goes without saying that the more capable of my peers manage to understand the whole system with apparent ease.

I can now see that this has been an issue at many of my jobs over the years. In the end I’ve tended to try and build a reputation around having specialist knowledge about the part of the system I’m working with, with mixed success. In jobs where this was possible then it’s worked well, I’ve felt confident and capable in my role, and managers have generally been very appreciative of the work I’ve produced. In roles like my current one, where I need to know about many diverse components in a large system, however, I feel inadequate and something of a fool and a fraud.

There is a clear message here. I need to work in jobs that allow me to become a specialist in a small area. That is what my brain is good at dealing with.

My future at work doesn’t – can’t – lie in my current role – it is slowly drowning me.

The anatomy of a special interest

Whilst browsing the web a few evenings ago, I found myself – as I often do – following my thought process to see where it would lead me.

My starting point was a news item I’d seen earlier in the day that had piqued my curiosity. The story was this – a ghost village near to where my parents live in Scotland is to finally be demolished after thirty five years of sitting empty.

I love stories like this – local history and it’s odd quirks in particular have long been a fascination of mine, making this a special interest that makes regular and usually unanticipated repeat visits.

Over the course of an hour and a half, I let my thought processes dictate where this starting point would lead me. It lead to somewhere quite unexpected, but still in the same special interest thread (just) – Drax power station.

What follows is a little dissection of my thought processes that show how I got from A to B, via C on the way.

As I’ve said, we started here – a BBC news story about how the ghost village of Polphail in Argyll is to be demolished thirty five unhappy years after being built and never having been occupied.

The village, it turns out, was a legacy of the Scottish oil boom of the 1970s. A series of dry docks were built at that time around the Scottish coast for building giant concrete oil rigs, and Polphail was built next to one of these to house the expected workers. But the workers never came – the technology changed, and when it comes down to it, this dock and village were built on the west coast of Scotland, and all the oil is off the Eastern seaboard. The government has long since sold off the dock, which has recently been redeveloped into a marina, having served time as a fish farm. The unused village has changed hands several times, and has had a long and unhappy history of promised demolitions which have never been carried out.

A link from the BBC page (the link is no longer there) took me to a collection of photographs by a local photographer, that document the decay in the village, along with surprising details such as a rack of keys for the houses, and washing machines in a launderette – all still in place after thirty five years. The photos are eerily beautiful, and the website is well worth a visit.

Google maps showed me where Polphail was. After seeing it, I wondered if Google could tell me any more about it’s history. I found this – a wiki about secret and obscure sites in Scotland. This had some useful additional information, but I’ll come back to this in a few moments.

At this juncture, I wondered if there were any other ghost villages in the UK, so I searched. I found a couple.

The British military, it would seem has been the main cause of ghost villages in the recent past. During the Second World War, it commandeered three villages for exercises – Tyneham in Doset on the south coast, Imber on Salisbury Plain – not far from Stonehenge, and Mynydd Epynt in Wales. In each case, the government told the occupants that the land was temporarily required for military use, and gave them a month to leave. None has ever had their home returned to them, even to this day.

Figuring all this out took a while, and involved a lot of quick searches and looks via Google Maps to see what was there on the ground today. Some of the websites I found along the way were wonderful examples of amateur passion and campaigning turned towards the direction of a new technology like the web, including this great example here. You’ll find a great tour of Tyneham here.

Some further searching for other possible ghost villages turned up this gem of a website. I’ve barely scraped the surface of it yet, but have it tucked away to devour in full when I get the time. This site just about left me agog, as it talks about a now vanished village that I have driven past the site of many times – Glenbuck in Ayrshire, Scotland. Glenbuck is on the road I drive down when I visit my parents, which is the same road that we used to drive down to visit my grandmother when I was a child. Due to this I know the road well, and can create a wonderful 3D video of it in my head. The old mining town, with houses and a main street, has gone – vanished under a scar of open-cast mining. The industry that made it also in the end tore it up too.

With other ghost villages examined, it’s time to go back to Polphail, where we started.

I noticed on the Secret Scotland website that there were links to various planning documents (isn’t it amazing what you can get easy access to these days online?), so I had a bit of a read of these. Not only did these tell me a lot more of the history of village including the various efforts to try and get the owners to demolish it, but the site also had some interesting reading about how much public money had been wasted on building it in the first place. It wasn’t the cost that grabbed me however, it was mention that the costs for it were listed with the costs to build the Hunterston Deep Water Terminal, which is literally just down the road from where my parents live. I’ve always known that Hunterston was a port for bulk materials, but I’d never really know what. A quick trip to Wikipedia told me that these days coal is offloaded here, and then taken over the road via a large conveyor (easily visible in Google Maps) to the railway, where it is sent elsewhere.

And this is where Drax comes in. Wikipedia told me that one of the places that coal from Hunterston is shipped to is Drax – a huge coal-fired power station located in my neck of the woods, and just a couple of miles down the road from where I worked for a little over two years. Drax is huge and imposing – on a clear day you can see it from near my house, which is some twenty miles away as the crow flies. It’s huge in terms of output too – on it’s own it can provide 7% of the UK’s electricity, and if you classed Drax as a country in it’s own right, it would rank as the 76th biggest produces of CO2 in the world. Wow!

So – Polphail to Drax, via Tyneham and Glenbuck. All in all a very interesting ninety minutes.

Was it really ninety minutes? It seemed like much less time than that. I’ve been writing this piece for about that amount of time too, and once more the time has flown. This is what special interests are about – I get so thoroughly absorbed in them that time just disappears.

I think the above dissection of my thought processes gives a good example of how special interests drag me in, and of how my brain becomes a huge sponge for new information, devouring anything and everything vaguely related that I can find.

It also shows the other side of special interests too – the desire to share the knowledge I’ve learnt, often in detail to people that aren’t interested. This article is exactly that, but in written form.

I’d be willing to bet that some of those who start reading don’t make it here, and I can’t blame them.

As for you – well thank you for listening!

The work problem

I could have called this article Life derailed: part 2 or maybe even Derailed job. It’s really a continuation of my thoughts from the article I wrote yesterday, but applied to my work life.

My work life hasn’t been derailed as yet, well not completely at any rate. In my article yesterday I talked about how my life at work hasn’t lived up to my youthful neurotypical aspirations. There is no question that my neurology has held me back versus my non-AS peers, but I’ve still managed to perform adequately, especially when well managed.

But how long will that last? I don’t mean here that I’m likely to go off the rails simply because I now know about my AS. This is a slightly more subtle and long-term problem. I’m thirty six now, which means that in a few short years I’ll be forty. Age in itself isn’t the problem, but age and work mixed together is.

In general, I’m comfortable with the type of work I do these days. It’s technical work, and often repetitive. The problem is that older people don’t do jobs like this in the UK. I’ve been involved in the interview process with enough companies to know that technical ability (and I’m no genius on that side of things) doesn’t count for everything. Running alongside it is that wonderful characteristic of team fit. Here in the UK, you can’t use age as a reason for refusing someone a job. You can, however legitimately refuse to employ someone because you believe they wouldn’t be a good fit into the existing team, and I’ve been on interview panels where older applicants were rejected for that very reason.

IT is a young man’s game. The industry is full of bright young things fresh out of University, and I get a year older than the average age every year. As people progress in years, they also progress in skills, and usually up the corporate ladder too. Most of my peers are now either technical architects (which is about as far as you can go technically, and is a job reserved for the truly technically gifted), or are managers of IT teams. They’re either at the pinnacle of the technical ladder, or have already started to leave it behind.

At the moment I can still find work, but in the last three companies I’ve worked for I’ve been one of the oldest members of the team. In my last job, for a major online retailer, I was in my early to mid thirties, and the average age of what was a very skilled team was mid to late twenties. That’s quite a gulf. How much longer will it be before I find it difficult to land roles, no matter how well I come across in interviews? How long will it be before I’m hitting that “He could do the job, but he wouldn’t fit into the team” problem?

My IT train will get derailed in time, I have no doubt.

What can I do about it? Well, the standard route that my peers take to avoid the problem – moving into team management and ultimately further up the managerial ladder isn’t a realistic option for me. So what could I do instead?

I could take contract roles in IT. My view is that if you contract in IT in the UK, then you can go on in technical roles for a good few extra years than if you were in a permanent role. Whilst contracting is an option, I’m not well suited to it. Contracting is a risky game, with no job security. It often involves lots of short term roles with different people in different locations. As I’ve written before, it takes me a long time to settle in and find my feet in a new job, which makes short term contracts stressful for me, and stops me performing at my best.

I could start my own company. I’m reasonable at money management, and have a useful skill in setting up and managing email and websites that I could build a business around. I’m hopeless at marketing however, so finding clients and selling my talents to them would be difficult, and without a decent number of clients the business wouldn’t be viable. This, I guess is a dream that there is an outside chance might come true, but it would take a tremendous amount of effort and courage for it to be in with a fighting chance.

What about low risk options? Well, I could take a technical role whilst I still can with a large company that offers job security. I would need to join with the mindset that no matter how annoyingly badly run the company turned out to be, I’d have to grin and bear it. With a technical position in a large corporate, I could potentially tread water and stay in technical roles for years, but at the cost of not being able to move companies. My neurotypically-programmed responses tell me that this is a very lazy way to work, and I suspect that is how it would come cross to my managers in the company – “James has no ambition…”.

I could look at doing something completely different, outside of the technical IT world. Perhaps I should hone my writing skills and get into technical writing. I understand many technologies and my AS abilities to see things in detail may help me to document things. Could I motivate myself to write every day for a living however? I don’t know.

Maybe I should go and work in a shop. That would be less stress, but would have the difficulties involved in having to interact with people all day. It also wouldn’t bring in the sort of money that my family are used to living on.

There are no easy answers to this one, but ultimately I need to give this some serious thought, before it’s too late and I find that my train is completely derailed. That’s the one thing that isn’t an option.

Suggestions welcome!

Camouflage, understanding, and a Big Professor

I’ve recently become aware that there are a number of non-typical things that I do when speaking to people, particularly when it’s a one-to-one conversation. The conversation subject could be anything, but the examples I use below are based on a work scenario, where something technical is being discussed.

Perhaps the most obvious (and annoying) trait in these scenarios is for me to finish other people’s sentences, in a questioning tone of voice. If you know or work with me, then chances are you are used to me doing this. I’m sure it must be a little off-putting when you first meet me.

Also, I want you to know that I am listening to you, and to this end, I interject with lots of reassuring noises – lots of uh-huhs and yups and yeps when you are speaking. Everyone does this, of course, but I’ve noted that I seem to do it rather more frequently than average. Sometimes, when stressed, I’m making an almost constant stream of acknowledging noises.

Another trait that I have is to ask lots of questions. If I’m going to help you (and lets be honest about this, I’m going to try and help you whether you are after my advice or not), then I need to be able to understand the problem you are facing.

I think there is a clear reason for these behaviours: I want to understand, and I want you to see that I understand. Ok, so that’s two reasons, but the underlying causes are very closely linked.

My ASD social interaction problems mean that I’m never sure how I should non-verbally behave in two-way conversations. So instead of whatever it is that ordinary people do to non-verbally signal their empathy and understanding (just what do people do, incidentally?), I use verbal signals that I’m in tune with what the other person is saying.

In light of this, my behaviours make a lot of sense. Finishing sentences, whilst annoying, clearly demonstrates that I have been listening and taking in what the other person was saying. The frequent noises of agreement do the same, too.

My asking of questions may also give this impression, but in reality it serves a different purpose. What I’m trying to do is build up a mental picture of the thing you are telling me about, in a language that makes more sense to me. This mental picture is typically quite visual and often manipulatable like a 3d model, with difficult concepts encapsulated into boxes with labels in my mind’s eye. This is what seems to work best for me, and it helps me see the bigger picture of your problem. This is me trying to understand in my own language, rather than wanting you to see that I do understand.

Wanting to understand is vital to me, perhaps simply because I am aware that I think in a different way to typical people. Experience has shown me that other people tend to grasp concepts far more quickly than I do. They can see the big picture in most scenarios and not just the minute details in the middle, and this view on things is straight forward to them and requires minimal brain power. I conversely tend to see the minute detail in the middle, but not the other surrounding details, with large amounts of brain power required for concepts – hence the questions.

I further suspect that most people don’t actually see the big picture at all – they just understand it is there, and how it works. I, on the other hand work far better if I can see it all in my mind’s eye, including how it all fits together.

From an early age, my observation that I don’t understand the same things as others, and that my level of detail is different to theirs has lead to the development of the camouflage techniques I’ve mentioned above. Let the other person know that I’m listening, and give them an impression that I understand what they are saying. Ask questions so that I can translate their language into one that I can see and comprehend.

Ultimately, it’s vital for me to understand, because experience tells me that typically that is what is expected of me – an ordinary person would understand. When you have grown up not being able to differentiate between what you are expected to trivially understand, and what it would be acceptable to admit that you don’t know, the best camouflage has proven to be to say that you understand everything, and then do your best to demonstrate that you do.

And that is exactly what I do.

These techniques are also ringing bells with me about a well publicised AS trait that is usually mentioned alongside talk of  ‘Little Professors‘. Your average Little AS Professor can speak at length about a subject of interest without actually having a detailed understanding of the mechanics behind the interest. I think this sort of  confident faking-it technique is most likely another string in the bow of the camouflage tools I’ve outlined above. Having signalled to the other person that I’ve listened to and understood what they were saying, and having asked questions so that I can formulate my own picture, I’d then be happy to go and tell someone else about the subject in question, in a tone of voice that suggested that I understood entirely what I was talking about.

I become a Big Professor.

I often don’t understand the subject in detail of course, but if it’s something that I judge I should know about, then I’ll act as though I do.

Loud noise feedback

Maybe this is normal. I don’t really want to go round asking people though, because they’ll most likely think I’m mad, regardless of which outcome turns out to be normal.

Whatever the case, it’s my Aspie trait of spotting the tiniest of details in things that’s lead me to spotting this, and then wondering what it was.
Read more