📄 Export to PDF

To save as PDF: Press Cmd+P (Mac) or Ctrl+P (Windows/Linux), then select "Save as PDF" from the print dialog.

This instruction box will not appear in the printed version.

Welcome to Signal Blind

The “signal blind” mental architecture is not defined by struggle with social signals, but by the absence of them. I do not experience social anxiety, sensory overload, or the “social burnout” common in autism. Where others describe a “painful gap” between themselves and society, I perceive a neutral data field. My logic is not a compensatory tool for a broken social sense; it is the primary and only mode of operation.

About Me

This site documents a specific cognitive architecture: Total Social Signal Blindness. It is the functional map of my own cognitive architecture. I discovered late in life that I might be neurodivergent and this is what I discovered.

At over 50 years of age a therapist asked me if I had ever been diagnosed as autistic. I hadn’t and wondered why she might ask. It turns out she had excellent instincts as I have significant overlap on all the Category A indicators, such as Saying The Wrong Thing, but none of the Category B indicators (I can’t experience Shame and have no social anxiety). Typically that might suggest SCD, but it is not that either.

I believe I am unable to process any social signals. I have no Theory of Mind and no Social Salience. Yet, I didn’t even realize I was different than anybody else – sure I had my oddities, but so did everybody else. This seemed well within the bounds of personality. Curiously, the lack of social salience may have played a part in this perception. I couldn’t see the signals and nobody had ever mentioned them. In cases where there were hints, like Double Empathy, it didn’t bother me – the part of the brain that would cause you to care is … you guessed it, the social saliency network. And mine was turned off.

My wife and I were reading Autism Couple’s Workbook and I was struck by how pertinent the book seemed to be in terms of my outward behavior, but then it was a complete miss on things like meltdowns. I kept searching to understand the mechanism and I finally found it when the book mentioned Theory of Mind being a key factor behind several of the behaviors. I talked to the therapist and she gave me the key that unlocked it all: Theory of Mind is not a logic puzzle in NT people, it is automatic and effortless.

From this I was able to build a predictive model that fit my entire experience: I had no Social Salience and thus no social signal. I was signal blind. This is distinct from the Autism Experience where there is often a social signal but it has to be manually processed, though in some cases people experience Hyposalience. I have none and no workarounds. I perceive humans around me as Black Boxes where I can observe their inputs and outputs but have no notion of their inner state (thoughts and emotions). I am not a psychopath, I have extremely rigid Ethics in an Axiomatic Deontology – the first rule of me is do not harm others.

To be clear: I am not a robot, even though it might seem that way. I have long-term friends. I have been married for almost 25 years and have children. I am a successful software developer and have been with a top tier company for over 20 years. I think the interesting thing about all of this is that I made it work – I have a system (see below). It isn’t without flaws, some significant, but many of them I didn’t know about until I started researching NT behavior.

Some starting points:

Is this legit? You can read my Disclaimer and FAQ and decide for yourself. This model predicts my behavior and feelings with high fidelity – I think it is real.

Objective

I was documenting my mental architecture for myself – it is hard to find Mitigation techniques if you don’t understand what is happening. That was the case reading books and articles about autism: many of the problems and techniques that were described just didn’t fit. This model does. The jury is still out on the mitigation, but I am already seeing some positive effects with my wife.

As I was researching this I naturally wanted to find other records of people like myself. I can’t be unique in this world and finding a research paper or study that described this would give it some legitimacy and hopefully provide a well of information.

Sadly my quest failed. Where Are My People?

My hope is that someone like me will find this and recognize their own architecture.

Does this sound familiar? I have a Checklist if you want to see what I think might be discriminating factors.

Data Reliability and Provenance

Technical Status

This model is a high-fidelity representation of my subjective cognitive experience. It has not undergone clinical peer review, see Disclaimer.

Methodological Note: Machine-Assisted Synthesis

The frameworks described here were developed through iterative analysis in collaboration with a Large Language Model (LLM) – you can see my System Prompt to understand more.

Success Metric: Functional Utility

The primary value of this site is Functional Utility, not Universal Theory.

Disclaimer

Things I want readers to understand about the information on this site.

Not Medical Advice

Don’t read any of this as medical advice. It is probably not wise to read it as advice at all. This was developed to help me understand myself. This is not diagnosing any condition, it is trying to describe my mental model. I am not looking for consideration or medicine, I am trying to understand so that I may interact more fruitfully with my wife.

Truth

I value the Truth and Facts above most other things (see Ethics for the few things I value more). As far as I know, what I have written here is true. Read this disclaimer to understand how I developed the information and judge for yourself.

Just because I think it is true does not mean it is without error. I may misrepresent, I may misunderstand and I may not know, but I wouldn’t write it if I didn’t think it was true. Let me know if you find an error or have a question!

This model is not sacrosanct. I feel no Shame and although this describes my identity, it is not my identity. It can be updated with no emotional cost if it is found to be incorrect. There is mechanical cost to update it, but I value truth and accuracy. The model is less useful if it is not correct.

Descriptions of Autism and NT

My notes have descriptions of autism and NT behaviors and experiences. See why I compare.

These are not first hand experiences. They are not second hand experiences. Mostly I am summarizing what I have read and what I get from an LLM. To be clear: this is largely synthetic data and a synthetic model for both NT and autism experiences.

My hope (desire but am not sure it is true) is that these are close to reality. If they are not, let me know. I also know everyone is different, and perhaps autistic people more than most – the D in neurodiverse means widely varied. If you are autistic my descriptions may not fit you. I hope they fit somebody.

Note: my descriptions of autism are also focusing mainly on what is formerly known as Aspergers and is now called ASD Level 1 – I focus on this because it has the most overlap with my experience. I don’t call this out anywhere except here. Note that I do not have autism – my mechanism is different and I have a different experience. I do have significant overlap on Category A behaviors and no Category B, so this is very relevant to me. I do not understand what it feels like to be autistic any more than I understand what it feels like to be NT.

These are mostly notes about myself and trying to understand the mechanism that causes my own behavior. I can directly observe the behavior of myself and others and I have some ability to introspect myself. Sadly I cannot look at my source code, but I can devise thought exercises and logical models that fit. In these notes I describe what I understand are the mechanisms and outcomes for both autistic and NT behavior, but understand that this is necessarily a generic view (I am using them as a baseline to provide contrast for my own experience).

For NT people there is also variation and my descriptions may not fit you either. Hopefully it is in the ballpark for many of the descriptions.

How I Developed This Information

You can read my History to see my journey. For most of the material here I worked with LLMs to:

I used both ChatGPT and Gemini to get information from two different models – they are trained differently so this would avoid some biases. I carefully read the output and asked for explanations where I didn’t understand. If something didn’t fit my experience I considered why: was my model wrong? Had I asked the right question? Did I understand what was being said?

I also kept probing the conclusions I reached. For example, if the primary mechanism is no Social Salience what evidence do I have? Could it be something else? Are there gray areas where the model doesn’t fit?

Where possible I tried to find independent confirmation of the ideas but it is hard because there is not much written about my condition – Where Are My People?

TLDR: I have tried to be careful, but this is not my area of expertise so it is best effort. For my purposes (mental model useful to me) this is fine. See Truth.

If you want to try your hand at it, take a look at System Prompt.

Condition First vs Person First

I know that the usual style for writing is “person who is tall”, but I am going to use phrases like “autistic person” and “NT (neurotypical) person”:

If I have that wrong please let me know!

Could This Be Entirely False?

Yes, possibly. See also FAQ. I don’t think it is, but skepticism is good.

There is a concept called Labeling Theory that suggests applying a label or diagnosis to somebody can cause them to behave that way. Think astrology: different signs have certain behaviors and this is reinforced by people who believe in astrology. Is my investigation actually affecting my behavior? I hope so, for Mitigation steps. I think I am observing myself clearly and describing rather than changing, but introspection and knowledge makes me aware of it too.

About all I can say is that my observations about myself are truthful as far as I can perceive – I might be mistaken, but when I find inconsistencies I figure them out.

If I find out there are errors I will correct them, up to and including rewriting all of my notes.

Writing Style and Formatting

1. Delivery Modes: Stories vs. Facts

This site uses two different ways of writing depending on what is being described:

2. Why I Don’t Use a “Terse” Style

I avoid writing in a very short or “stilted” way because it often causes unnecessary problems. In many social situations, being too brief is seen as being cold or angry. Using a more natural, conversational style allows the information to be received without causing that specific kind of social friction.

3. Fact-Based Presentation

I present my observations as Facts.

4. Descriptions of Others (The LLM Proxy)

I cannot directly perceive the social signals or internal feelings of other people.

I know that the descriptions of NT and autistic people may not apply to a particular person – my intent is that they are directionally correct and apply to many people.

FAQ

Why is this not classified as Autism (ASD)?

While phenotypic overlaps exist, my architecture lacks the primary diagnostic markers of ASD, such as sensory hypersensitivity or emotional dysregulation.

Are the terms used here clinically accurate?

The terminology used is selected for Predictive Fidelity rather than Academic Alignment.

Does “Signal-Blindness” imply a deficit or loss?

No. To “miss” a signal, one must first have a mechanism to perceive its importance.

Were you always this way?

Yes, as far as I know. I am sure my ethics and even abilities were honed over time as I gained experience in the world, but I think I was always the way I am.

What are you diagnosed with?

Nothing – I was asked if I was ever diagnosed with Autism and that is what led me to investigate being ND. The DSM-5 typically requires some impairment or distress in parts of your life for a “diagnosis”. That is not to say that my condition had no effect on my life but I didn’t observe any impairment – I thought Everybody is the Same.

I believe I have no Social Salience and feel that it predicts my behavior and experience, but this is not a diagnosis.

Do you wish you were neurotypical?

No, I don’t feel any distress from having no Social Salience. In fact, the social areas where I might feel distress are exactly the things that I don’t care about because of this lack. I never knew I was “missing” anything and until very recently didn’t even know I was different from other people.

If I became NT I would be a completely different person. I would experience the world a different way, I would think a different way. I would not to be someone other than myself.

Why do you compare your experience to NT?

Without contrast I thought Everybody is the Same. I need a point of reference to know what things might be worth noting – remember these are written to help me understand how I am different than others.

I also compare to autism because there is a good deal of Overlap in the behaviors. I like to understand how it is the same and how it is different.

Did an LLM write this?

No, I wrote it, but I did use an LLM to help – this isn’t my area of expertise and curiously the LLMs could do a good job of explaining the experiences (at least gleaned from papers and writing) of NT and autistic people.

In some cases I presented the LLM with my observations and asked it questions to help me analyze, see System Prompt.

I also used the LLM to review my writing and point out areas that were not clear. In some cases I quoted excerpts from the LLM (say a sentence or a bullet point) … without attribution. Sorry!

Is this all just made up? An LLM fantasy?

I hope not, but it is certainly a risk. LLMs can be echo chambers and by default are yes-men:

See my previous point about how I developed it. My System Prompt is specifically designed to ask me probing questions, but it does take some of the developed information as truth. I will occasionally ask probing questions myself.

It isn’t proof against delusion, but I also talk to a therapist. Why not base all of this on talk with humans? It is possible for sure, but would be very expensive. I am not looking for a diagnosis, more an explanation. I am curious and if I understand why I think the way I do, I can seek to mitigate some of the effects. Just like debugging software.

So, no guarantee it isn’t all fantasy, but:

I was unable to find other accounts exactly like mine but I do have something different and there are reasonable explanations for why I might not find them.

It is up to you, the reader, to decide if this is true or false. For me it is useful if it is true. It doesn’t have to be exactly right to be useful, but somewhere close.

My Experience

You can read my History and how I discovered that I was ND after over 50 years thinking Everybody is the Same.

Mechanism

I have identified two root causes for my ND condition:

everything else falls out of that, perhaps the important piece being:

What Does it Feel Like?

Calm, quiet, peaceful. I think there is a ton of social stress that is just not visible to me. Social salience is perhaps unique in that it is responsible for both perceiving the signal and caring about it. I have neither. I am usually happy.

Here are some examples that might give a hint:

I think Theory of Mind: Identity of Others might also give some insight if I explained it well enough.

On top of this lack of signal, I think different than other people – necessarily because so much NT thought is around social things. I even have different Ethics. These might sound a little more familiar to autistic people, though they probably use Affective Deontology – both of these will probably look about the same to NT people (Social Utilitarianism).

You can read about my emotions but you might not perceive them as I have somewhat Flat Affect and no emotional mirroring or signaling. I have emotions but they are different than what either NT or autistic people experience. I have no Shame, see Hard Truths for an example. There are quite a few socially oriented emotions that I simply can’t experience. Others, like Compassion I use the same word (it looks the same to me) but it isn’t the same feeling. Anger and Sadness are two that are probably the most similar and recognizable.

Despite all of these differences from the norm, I have Zero Lag, low Friction (personally), and experience some Benefits from the way my mind works.

Does it sound like your own experience? I think these are discriminating questions: Checklist.

The TLDR is: I don’t receive any social signals. I don’t know what other people are feeling or thinking. I don’t know about social positioning. On top of not knowing, I also don’t care. Not in a negative way, more like asking somebody how they feel about radio waves.

What Friction Do You Experience?

I experience very little Friction myself. Although I exhibit category A autism social effects I can’t really perceive them. People have told me about them and as I learn more about ND and NT people I can understand that there are differences. I don’t have any of the category B effects or high social cost effects like meltdowns. I am not worried about how others perceive me (again a unique effect of no social salience).

That isn’t to say there is no friction. I know that I can Say The Wrong Thing and I give off unusual social signals. This sometimes causes trouble. I don’t always know it at the time, sometimes people like my wife have to tell me. For the longest time I thought it couldn’t be true – how could somebody make things up about me and then believe them? I now know about the mechanism and have a little more insight here, but still don’t really understand it.

Also perhaps unique to no social salience is the fact that the friction is asymmetric. I have no Empathy, I don’t react to emotions in the same way other people do. I don’t react at all. This is not a big deal at work, in fact I might just appear very calm. It isn’t so important with friends, that is more casual and fun – they can accept that I am a little odd pretty easily. It is a lot harder with my closest relationships: my family, my wife, my kids. Well, so they tell me.

Perhaps I can illustrate this with an example:

The Logical Collision:

Conclusion: I am responding to the explicit signal (location); she is responding to the social vacuum (connection). Both are technically correct, but we are measuring different things.

Why No Social Salience

Hypophantasia is directly observable – once I knew it “was a thing” I could describe my imagination experience and google/LLMs easily gave me a term. Sure enough that was a match.

No Social Salience is a bit trickier, see Stage 3 for how I discovered it. There is plenty written about Theory of Mind and the social salience network, but very little about what i experienced. Each time I would read something that sounded close there would be stressors that I just didn’t experience. For example, noisy social salience seems to be one of the root causes for autism (your mileage may vary, I understand people are different). It produces a huge overlap (and Overlaps) but also a big gap.

Eventually I settled on no social salience – literally no social signal. I couldn’t perceive it, in fact I didn’t even know it was there. It was like being achromatic and nobody mentioning that color exists. Well, maybe more like people not mentioning breathing – everybody has it, it is automatic, it is just a thing. Nobody talks about breathing either.

OK, so why do I think it is actually no social salience?

Those are all good evidence of something being different about my social salience, but zero?

My hypothesis is that if I had any social salience I would:

There is a description of this – it is called hyposalience (note: the author does not use that term, but I think that is the term for what he describes). He had a very low social salience signal, too low to be usable, but he was aware of it and experienced the points I make above (with perhaps less effect on the last two).

Anyway, I could be wrong, but the consistency of this model matching my own experience makes me confident that it is at least partially correct – there might be more to it.

Social Salience

Note: this document describes what I do not have, see below

See also: NT Experience, Autism Experience, My Experience

The word “salience” has to do with assigning importance to something. In computer vision it is identifying parts of an image that are important.

Social salience network is the label for a very low level part of the brain that gives meaning and importance to social signals. For example in Theory of Mind an NT person will observe a large number of nonverbal cues as input to their simulation. Social Saliency grades these and decides what inputs are important. Sort of a gain control on the primary signal.

Social saliency doesn’t just apply to nonverbal cues, it also affects:

Social salience is roughly the volume control on the social signal.

Note: the social salience network is primarily the anterior insula and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. Yeah, I don’t know where those are either, but if you are curious, that is what I read!

My Experience: Lack of Social Saliency, Signal Blindness

This signal blindness, the lack of any social signal, is the main key to my condition and behavior.

I experience a complete lack of social saliency – the volume on the social signal is turned to zero. It is Pure A-salience, a complete signal blindness (hence the website name).

I don’t receive any social signals. I don’t pick up nonverbal cues. I don’t know what people are thinking or how they are feeling unless they explicitly tell me. I didn’t even know this was a thing!

I am not only missing the social signal but also the social connections and pressures that go along with it. I don’t particularly care what another person thinks of me: either they are right and I should take note or they are wrong and I can ignore it. I don’t experience Shame or a whole host of other socially triggered emotions.

See also:

Hypophantasia, Low Absorption, and Inner Speech

I never realized people have a wide variety of ways that thoughts appear in their head.

One time my wife and I were doing a mindfulness exercise where a narrator guided us like this (roughly):

We each described out experience with the exercise. My wife thought it was peaceful and she described a vivid scene that once set up ran by itself. When new pieces of the scenario were added, they just appeared and worked automatically.

I had a different experience. I manually constructed each step and then was kind of stressed that the narrator went and changed everything on each new step. Why didn’t he mention these things all at once? For example, I placed the trees on the hills. When the leaves were falling on the water I had to reconstruct the scene with the trees near the water. Leaves falling and flowing was me manually animating each leaf and moving it downstream. I was following the instructions literally – whatever vibes my wife was picking up were lost on me. It was exhausting! I am pretty sure that was not the intent of the exercise (and I was never fond of these mindfulness exercises, now I know why!)

This was the first time I ever heard that somebody might imagine a scene different from the way I do. I thought Everybody is the Same.

Once I had this contrasting information I was able to go home and find out what this is called – that let me do more reading on what was going on. I found it particularly useful to use an LLM (I think ChatGPT in this case) to describe what happened and ask for a term – the first term I got was Low Absorption.

Low Absorption

Absorption is how much a person becomes absorbed in their mental imagery, especially in fantasy. A person with high absorption (my wife) has fully autonomous imagination. A person with low absorption (me) has to do everything manually.

Curiously this term originated in a study about how easy it is to be hypnotized. I might be immune!

Hypophantasia

Aphantasia is the inability to visualize mental images. Hypophantasia is a lesser form with very low, faint, or unstable visual mental imagery. Hyperphantasia has vivid imagery.

I find that my mental imagery looks a bit like a Lite-Brite. Sort of outlines of images. I think it is consciously directed. I can recall what things looked like, visualize maps or layouts, and easily picture complex structures in software.

Inner Speech

Related to these is what thinking “sounds like” in my brain (not looks like!). People who are more visual may experience a flow of images. Because of my hypophantasia I internally vocalize my thoughts, which is called Inner Speech. I am literally talking to myself to think. There is no audience, just me. It is not a rehearsal for what I will say, it is how my thoughts are realized. I do this when I am by myself.

Conscious thought is typically in full sentences, or at least sentence fragments. More spurious thoughts are single words: as I walk through a crowd I am thinking “left” and “avoid”, not full sentences.

The only voice in my head is my own. When I am thinking about other people I am making statements to myself: “I am hungry, perhaps X is also hungry”. This internal voice is not just stating facts, it is the execution of my thought process in my Functional Cognitive Architecture.

Per an LLM, the NT experience is a bit different: NT inner speech frequently incorporates Theory of Mind (ToM) Simulation. They do not just “think” a fact; they “simulate” a conversation. This voice often has Prosody (tone, pitch, and emotional cadence). They can “hear” the voice of a parent, a spouse, or an imagined antagonist.

A person more in the middle of the phantasia scale has images thrown in: when they think of a “dog,” they see a generic, nonspecific image of a dog while the word “dog” occurs in their inner speech.

My Experience: Memory

I described what it looks like in my mind above. I might have missed something: without the contrast of another point of view it is just “how I am”.

These factors also affect how our minds store and retrieve memories.

Per an LLM in NT people memory is a “mental time travel” event. Retrieval involves re-experiencing sensory data (smell, sight, emotion) and “feeling” the past self’s state.

For me, memories are bundles of facts, maybe some vague imagery. They are indexed by place and by activity. I can easily recall what I did at a particular place as a list of activities. I might remember who was there, but maybe not. I don’t relive my memories, I access a log of the events.

Thinking of “memories of the future” (called Prospection), I can imagine the scene when my dog dies (future). Perhaps it will be at the vet’s office and I will be holding him as he is put to sleep. I can’t really picture the scene, but I can feel my dog in my arms. I am tearing up a bit as I write this because it will be very sad.

Mentally I am modeling the weight and feel of my dog’s hair. I am calculating the physical sensation of a terminal loss. I feel the biological affect of this thought as if I were experiencing it. I don’t feel sad because of the emotions of the situation, I feel sad because my dog is being deleted from the universe – it is a literal loss of functionality.

This is called Semantic Prospection: I am knowing the facts and situation of what will occur.

Contrast this with the typical NT experience: they experience a mental movie and imagine how the dog feels, then they mirror that emotion or feel the void left by the loss of the dog. This is called Episodic Prospection – they feel the vibe of being there.

Everybody is the Same

All my life I had this idea that everybody was the same in terms of how we thought. I wonder, is this human nature? NT people certainly assume everyone else is NT – the difference is they are mostly right.

I had no social signal. Without knowledge of that I had no hint that everyone else was different. I thought differently but it was compatible enough, especially for more casual relationships. My mental model allowed for differences of opinion and even recognized facts. People could be inconsistent or irrational (in my point of view) and this was simply their personality or conscious choice. I could see differences in capability or interest but those also made sense.

It turns out this is common. The assumption that others share one’s internal cognitive architecture is a documented cognitive phenomenon known as the False Consensus Effect or Typicality Bias. In the absence of data to the contrary, the brain uses its own operating system as the default template for modeling all other agents.

Additionally, the Invisibility of Architecture is a universal cognitive constraint. Internal experience is non-comparative. Without an external reference point or a “System Diagnostic” from an outside source, an individual cannot perceive the absence of a faculty they have never possessed, nor can they perceive the “ease” of a faculty they struggle with.

Some people can see the difference, see Patric Gagne - Sociopath – she had high social saliency but low affect. She could perceive the signal and the effect of the emotions and knew she was not experiencing it. In a way she pierces the Invisibility of Architecture with high saliency and zero-affect. She could see both sides.

I had neither the signal nor the affect. From my point of view everybody was the same. The explicit data matched ad the exceptions could be accounted for.

NT people assume that Theory of Mind is a universal constant. It is automatic, always on and totally background. Except in very specific circumstances it isn’t even mentioned (who mentions breathing?).

People with autism fit in here too – they have TOM and affective mirroring but there is noise and some manual processing. They feel quiet different because they observe others using the same TOM without friction. They can perceive they are having difficult where others do not. Without the external observation of the mechanism or the NT experience they likely cannot conceptualize what is going on.

A-Salience is a difficult architecture to self-identify because it produces very little internal friction. The system works fine on its own terms. I never noticed I was signal blind.

History

I spent over 50 years of my life thinking Everybody is the Same. I didn’t experience any difficulties in life that seemed unique to me. I was successful in my career. I was married and had children.

My condition may be somewhat unique in that I couldn’t see any problems but other people had problems with me – in particular I had category A autism social communication and interaction markers but could not see them myself because of my lack of Social Salience (which I did not know about yet). I would argue with my wife about why people would “make things up about me and then believe them” (Theory of Mind emotional signaling gone wrong). That didn’t make any sense so I discarded it or perhaps because I had no social salience I simply labeled it as zero value – in any event it wasn’t a thing for me.

The first hint I had was when my therapist asked me if I had been diagnosed with autism. I was surprised but not offended. My mental model was built on a narrow dataset of media tropes and high-support needs—I hadn’t yet realized the spectrum included different processing styles rather than just “deficits.” In fact I had read an article written by an autistic person and was surprised by how clear it was. To say I was misinformed is an understatement.

I went home and started reading. It turned out I had huge Overlaps with autism. This was an insightful question from somebody who is trained and has a ton of experience talking to people with autism. As I read further I found the DSM-5 and went through the checklist. It seemed like I had something but it wasn’t autism. For the next several months the best label I had was “autism adjacent”.

This is the transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2.

Stage 1

Before summer 2025 I had no knowledge of neurotypical vs neurodivergent. I had heard the words and NT was “normal” and ND was … not? I had heard of autism and even heard that people with Asperger’s might be common in the software industry. I had met children with autism and communication difficulties, but really knew nothing about it.

My view of myself:

Looking back on this from Stage 3 I can see:

I didn’t know that then of course.

Stage 2

Summer 2025.

As mentioned in History my therapist asked me if I had been diagnosed as autistic. Upon further investigation I discovered I am certainly neurodivergent but Not Autistic. Maybe “autism adjacent” since I shared quite a few traits with autistic people.

Now at least I have an explanation for my experience. I am not a jerk, I only look like one.

I am in my 50s when I find out I am ND.

My new perception of myself:

The Autism Couple’s Workbook was useful in exploring this. I would read a chapter and be nodding – yeah, that is me, that is me. And then I would hit something like meltdowns and I had no experience with that. The explanations for what was going on helped in many cases.

My background is in software. I don’t like lingering bugs like “everything works except these couple of major things that don’t match”. It isn’t a solved problem until you understand the root cause. In this case I felt like knowing the mechanism for my neurodiversity would help.

During this time I found out about Hypophantasia – did you know that people have different mental experiences for imagination?

Stage 3

Stage 3 started in January 2026. In chapter 11 of the workbook it talked about types of Empathy and lack of empathy. It talked about Saying The Wrong Thing. It talked about various other things, but these two it linked to Theory of Mind. I had previously read about ToM and decided I had it, I was fine. Specifically “I understand other people have minds”. I could do the online versions of the tests – they were just logic puzzles really.

I discussed this with my therapist and she explained automatic ToM. This idea that a person could be aware of the thoughts and emotions of the people around them. This wasn’t just “figuring it out”, it was automatic and effort free. You didn’t think somebody was sad, you knew they were sad. This was the key to the breakthrough.

I went home and started reading more about Theory of Mind and how it worked: Simulation Theory and Theory-Theory. I read about the NT Experience and the Autism Experience (note: these descriptions are written from the point of view of knowing about Social Salience). I read about social salience, well specifically I read about this abstract idea of social signals.

I eventually tried some things with LLMs – they are good at pattern matching and I had used them successfully to give names to vague things that I could describe, like low absorption. I collected all my know symptoms and behaviors and asked various things. The prompt that unlocked the next step was something like “Is there something that ties all of these together and could be the mechanism?”

The first round, which lasted a few days, pointed me at “effortful, explicit theory of mind”. It was along the right track, but I kept running into inconsistencies. I kept asking questions about the mechanism. What would cause me to be missing the social signals. The one that stuck was having no Social Salience combined with Hypophantasia. That was everything – it was the root cause.

I was about to build a mental model and suddenly everything started to unlock.

Now that I understand the mechanism I can start to think about Mitigation. I can’t fix any of this – I simply don’t have the capability to “learn empathy” or anything like that. I can’t even mimic it with effort. Perhaps there are things I can do to detect when things are headed off the rails. We will see, that is ongoing work.

I continue to probe and discover new things. System exploration is exciting.

Not Autism

When I first met a therapist she asked me if I had ever been diagnosed with autism. I hadn’t and was a bit surprised that she would ask. I wasn’t offended but my ideas of autism didn’t seem to match my own experience (to be fair, they didn’t match autistic people’s experience either). It was actually an excellent question and opened up the door to start understanding neurodivergence.

I don’t have autism but I do have considerable overlap in some of my behaviors. If it helps somebody understand me then autism is maybe a more familiar word, but it is the wrong word for me.

It took me a while to discover how I was different – for half a year I said I was “autism adjacent” as that was the best description I had. I debug software for a living and this was like a very complex system that had mysterious behaviors. I finally discovered the mechanism behind my behavior: no Social Salience and this explained why my experience was different than autism but still had overlap.

Autism, or autism spectrum disorder as it is called in the DSM-5 and have to satisfy a specific criteria (A and B below) and have to have an impairing effect on everyday life to be considered autism (at least by the DSM-5). After I looked this up I found that I had huge overlap on A and none on B.

A: Social Communication and Interaction

Overlap: high, phenotypic similarity

I hit pretty hard here.

B: Restricted, Repetitive Patterns of Behavior

Overlap: none

And had none of these.

Overlaps

How would I be characterized? Neurodivergent, but how? See my History for what I experienced. Several different conditions were discussed or considered – they all had some overlap.

Autism

This was the first condition suggested but I discovered my condition is Not Autism. For lack of a better term I did describe my ND as “autism adjacent” for several months before I found the mechanism – it described many of the outward effects.

Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder

This is pretty close on one point:

Difficulties understanding what is not explicitly stated (e.g., making inferences) and non literal or ambiguous meanings of language

but the rest of the points (all required) don’t match, it is Not SCD. I don’t have problems communicating, especially technical information – at least I don’t think so!

Schizoid Personality Disorder

I read about this in an article and it seemed like it had some overlap:

tendency toward a solitary or sheltered lifestyle, reservedness, emotional coldness, detachment, and apathy

I discarded this idea as I didn’t:

Affected individuals may be unable to form intimate attachments to others and simultaneously possess a rich and elaborate but exclusively internal fantasy world.

In fact I had Hypophantasia (which I discovered later). I had friends and I enjoyed talking to them. I wasn’t socially active, but it didn’t repel me.

Alexithymia

I considered that my Flat Affect might be Alexithymia but I could describe my emotions, some better than others.

ASPD

Antisocial Personality Disorder: this classification covers a whole range of behaviors. There are two that are often mentioned – in both cases these authors describe having ASPD with prosocial behavior:

These are not clinical terms but the authors of those books find them useful to describe the cluster of behaviors and mechanisms.

Some more overlap in the social behaviors, but not me.

So What Is It?

No Social Salience.

Does it sound like your own experience? I think these are discriminating questions: Checklist.

The Neurotypical Experience

This describes the typical NT experience of Theory of Mind.

Note: I do not experience this and have only secondhand knowledge and information gleaned from LLMs.

See also: Autism Experience and My Experience.

The Autism Experience

This describes a typical autistic person’s experience of Theory of Mind. Autism varies widely and if you are autistic and reading this it may not match your experience.

Note: I do not experience this and have only information gleaned from LLMs. In fact this may not match anyone’s experience, but this model does fit with how I have read people think the ToM mechanism behind autism works.

See also: NT Experience and My Experience.

Alexithymia

“I feel something, but I have no words for it”.

Alexithymia is a personality trait characterized by an inability to identify, describe, or express one’s own emotions. It is not apathy, which is a lack of interest and is also different than Flat Affect which is an inability to express emotions.

There are two ways that it might affect a person:

Alexithymia can be very frustrating and isolating for a person who has it.

My Experience

This is a tricky one. I don’t think I have alexithymia, but there are some strong overlaps. I think I experience emotions in a very different way than most people, but I do have them and can describe them.

There is a chart I used with a therapist to try to describe my feelings.

emotion chart

These aren’t alexithymia, but they may be perceived to be related:

So I think I don’t have alexithymia, but certainly some overlap in appearance (phenotype).

Apologies

NT Experience

NT people may find it hard to apologize. Typically there is a “social cost” or loss of standing. They may feel like they “lost” or are “submitting”. Along with the verbal apology there is a submission social signal to indicate acquiescence.

My Experience

Since I have no Shame or feeling of social hierarchy, it is easy for me to apologize. I don’t have any negative social impact associated with it, so it is cheap (mentally). I also don’t have any social signal indicating sincerity – the apology is sincere but it doesn’t always land.

I don’t associate Truth and Facts with my identity so I can admit I was wrong. I can admit guilt in action. I may Say The Wrong Thing but I don’t mean it the way it is taken and can admit it, even if I don’t understand how it was taken.

I can say: “I am sorry that you feel I am trying to make you look stupid – that was not my intent and I am sorry it came across that way.” I accept that my words or actions made the recipient feel a certain way, even if I do not understand it. I can’t accept blame for intent, just ineptitude. It is true, but perhaps not in a way that people will understand. Some people will accept it and some will not. I don’t signal right and they may take it as an excuse. I can’t help that.

Often times it does defuse a situation – it is like pushing a reset button on the situation. That is good enough for me.

Authority

For NT people, authority, or social position carries considerable weight. They are offered respect and obedience. Their ideas are better. Flaws may be overlooked. Even lies and crimes may be overlooked in service of social harmony. Social position overrides opinions.

My Experience: Status-Neutral

Since I lack Social Salience, I lack the ability to care about social position. Probably in many cases I can’t perceive the social position itself – I can understand jobs that give authority but people would seem to be peers are a flat hierarchy to me. I respect competence rather than power.

I do recognize that my manager and people up the chain to the CEO have the power to compel me to do tasks that I disagree with. If I think a task is unwise or will not get the desired result I will tell the person giving the order, or if they are not available, my manager. Given my position at work, I see this as my responsibility. Once informed, they are free to decide as they please and own the consequences – I could be wrong. If I have my wits about me, I will attempt to reduce friction by talking to them in private or using softening words. There is a hard wall when it comes to my Ethics – I won’t do something that I think is illegal, dishonest, or will hurt people. It doesn’t matter who gives the order.

For example:

I don’t consider authority when evaluating ideas: if a janitor and a CEO both gave ideas for fixing the problem, I would pick the better idea. If the CEO was an expert in the field and I was not, I might defer to their expertise, but not their authority.

I do not have any status vibes. I wouldn’t know a king from a pauper, except by dress.

Additionally, I have No Authority Bias in my ethics. In fact I feel the opposite:

Benefits

As I mentioned in Everybody is the Same, I never even realized I was different than anybody else. Sure, I seemed to have some talents in software development, but everybody has things they are good at and bad at. Looking at myself after knowing more about what is going on, I can identify parts of my life that benefit.

Are there downsides? Maybe! See Friction and Communication. An oddity of having no Social Salience is that I can’t perceive many of the limitations and don’t have much feeling about it one way or another. I can see secondary effects in communication with my wife as the biggest issue.

Note that I work in software development, which is highly aligned with my Functional Cognitive Architecture. Computers and people who are dealing with them are typically very literal. The computer will do as programmed, even if it doesn’t make sense, so being literal is key. Of course where there are people, there are emotions, but in a workplace these tend to be more along the lines of frustration or boredom – nothing tricky.

Autism and ADHD Experience

I have read about and heard from friends with ADHD that there is some benefit to their condition in the software industry. Outside of that field, I am not sure. There are certainly stressful and tiring parts of autism and ADHD. Of course individual experiences vary. These are things that I have heard of that are sometimes a benefit (paraphrased from an LLM):

Although I am Not Autistic I do share some of the same benefits:

Where else do I benefit?

Sadly I do not have the power of flight.

Black Box

Most people use have Theory of Mind and think of other humans as bundles of emotions and thoughts. They feel them as other minds.

My lack of Social Salience means I can’t sense the social signals and don’t perceive people this same way. I mentally model other humans as black boxes. A black box (in science and engineering) is a system that is understood in terms of its inputs and outputs without understanding its inner state or mechanism.

You may make observations and even draw conclusions about black boxes:

X stated that they like cheese and I attach a fact to my mental model of X that notes this. I did not infer it, they literally said so. Based on situations (inputs) and actions (outputs) I might guess at some internal state: X might not like doing dishes. I don’t know this for sure, but I have some evidence that suggests it. I don’t know why they might not want to do the dishes (lazy like me?).

That is about all I know about X – what they told me and some indirect observation (and typically I would have to be looking for this).

Communication Difficulties

Before I found out I was ND I thought I had good or even excellent communication skills:

After I was married of course there were sometimes communication problems between me and my wife, but everybody has those and this was no different. Or so I thought: these are not at all the same.

Communication Grade 2.0

It turns out I might have a few difficulties that I didn’t really notice.

Communication at work (software job) was largely literal and logical. Truth and Facts were the primary form of communication. I fit in well with this – it is my native language and NT people had to adjust themselves to be clear.

At home, with my wife, Emotions were more likely part of the discussion. I think differently (no Social Salience, no Theory of Mind) and Say The Wrong Thing. I even have different meanings for emotion words and didn’t know it. I had no Empathy and Flat Affect – emotional conversations were … not great.

Additionally, NT people experience Double Empathy with me, though I don’t experience it with them. In fact I completely miss this nonverbal part – signal blind.

What works great in the office doesn’t always work the same way in the home. Now that I understand more about what is going on with NT emotional signaling I can see there is a big gap in some conversations. From what I read, these high emotion conversations aren’t easy for NT people and I am flying blind.

Contrastive Example - Bar

A contrastive example – what I experience vs what NT people experience.

Imagine a bar full of people talking. It is very loud and people are all around. You can barely hear your friends.

Now the observer closes their eyes. The room is replaced with a new empty room but with high fidelity spatial audio (many speakers).

An NT observer can detect that they are in an empty room with speakers playing. They experience automatic fusion of audio, thermal, olfactory, and haptic data and would pick up the absence of the field. There are no other people present. It is fake.

An autistic person who has a “noisy receiver” and manual theory-theory TOM would experience some kind of uncanny valley where the audio signals indicate people but the other non-audio signals indicate emptiness. Per the LLM, this might be a horror situation for them.

I would experience no difference – I probably couldn’t tell anything changed. Even if the audio was replaced with a more generic crowd cacophony it would still sound like a bar full of people to me. I don’t sense people.

Contrastive Example - Movies

A visualization of my experience. Imagine your life as a movie.

The NT Experience: You are watching a high-budget movie. You feel the “vibe,” see the subtext in Chad’s eyes, and “know” how he feels because the music and acting tell you. You are living the simulation.

My Experience: I am reading a raw dialog script. Script: Chad: “Oh, there you are.” Processing: I do not simulate a voice or a “feeling.” I extract the factual data point: Environment Update: actor’s physical location is now registered by Chad.

I only receive the words. There is no music. There is no acting. There is only the words in the script.

Note: I didn’t realize NT people would experience TOM through a movie screen. Perhaps this is why actors ask for their “motivation” – I always thought that was just some random acting thing.

Discovery

After discovering “automatic Theory of Mind” I tried some prompts with LLMs to see if it could give me ideas on what condition I might have or even more valuable, what caused my behavior.

This isn’t the exact prompt I used with an LLM – I asked various things, adding to the prompt as I discovered what symptoms I had that might be important.

The first several lines I had known since Stage 1. The “mind reading” line is what started to break this open in Stage 3.

This interaction is a technical mapping of cognitive architecture for personal introspection and system-debugging. I am not seeking medical advice or diagnostic validation. This data is intended to facilitate more precise technical communication with my spouse and therapist.

I am going to describe my observations of self and I want you to describe a possible mechanism that would cause this.

- I am not autistic
- I do have good overlap with ASD category A
- NO overlap with ASD category B
- I do not experience meltdowns, have trouble with criticism or have any social fatigue
- I have hypophantasia and low absorption
- I get along with everybody at work (software developer) and have very low ego
- it is harder with my wife as we have a much closer relationship -- I have flat affect and seem cold
- I do have emotions and can describe them
- I didn't know that NT social signals and "mind reading" were a thing until recently -- I thought it was a joke
- I have no idea what others are thinking or any sense of their emotions
- I have been told that reading a book at a party is a social gaffe.  I don't really care, I wasn't hurting anyone and it made sense to me
- I am normally very low stress, I don't experience any stress in social situations.  I don't avoid them but I don't crave them
- I have good communication skills

Each time I presented the prompt it would suggest potential conditions. I could read about them and decide if they fit or not. If they didn’t fit, I could add to the list to give a contra-indicator so the next time it wouldn’t be suggested.

By the end, the LLM was suggesting things about ToM and social salience. At first I thought I might have:

but the more I read about this I realized I didn’t have any of the social signals to execute manual ToM and on top of it, I didn’t really care about the lack of social signals. Eventually I came to believe I had no Social Salience, which is where I am now.

Do you have what I have?

As I read about the various conditions on Overlaps each one sounded a lot like me – I would pick up the matching symptoms and behaviors and ignore the rest. Each time I read more closely I would find out that it wasn’t quite what I thought. The same goes in reverse: you might find some overlap with my descriptions, but is it the same thing?

So how would somebody know if they have signal blindness? Working with an LLM I made a checklist.

Remember: this is not a diagnosis. I don’t have any background in this, I just experience it. See Disclaimer.

Positive Indicators

You might have signal blindness if you answer YES to all of these:

Negative Indicators

You might have signal blindness if you answer NO to all of these:

Final Filter

To be certain, ask yourself which of these two scenarios causes you more internal distress:

The Interpretation:

Double Empathy

Double empathy is a term coined in 2012 by Damian Milton to describe the difficulty in communication between NT people and autistic people.

The idea is that the cognitive structure for NT people are similar to each other and the structure for autistic people are similar to each other. Each group interfaces well with people from their own group, but less well between groups. Effectively the groups use different social languages and it forces each group to notice this and translate back and forth. The Theory of Mind is working, but differently – they aren’t modeling each other correctly. This can lead to miscommunication and mental fatigue. This double empathy problem tends to be lopsided: NT people, being the majority, expect others to conform to their point of view. Autistic people use Masking to act and sound like NT people, which adds additional mental load.

My Experience

Due to my lack of Social Salience I often don’t even notice we are talking different languages. Technically I can’t experience double empathy: I operate on explicit language only. I do not receive social signals, nor do I broadcast them. However, my lack of broadcast can be perceived by NT people as signal of “don’t care” or “hostility”.

For NT people interacting with me, they experience the double empathy problem and I am not aware of it. A concrete example: I went to a party with my wife and brought a book in case I got bored. As expected, I got bored, so I sat in the corner and read my book. Much later my wife told me that people were offended by my behavior. They thought I was angry with them (or something). I couldn’t believe it – why would they make something up (and totally false at that) and then believe it? It had to be a lie (this is Stage 1 of my history when I didn’t know about NT behavior). In reality this was double empathy. I was happy reading by myself. After all, I brought the book to the party for this very occasion. NT people saw my behavior and lack of social signals as extreme coldness or anger and acted upon that – they thought I had an active message for them when it was just a hallucination.

I had no experience of this – I had no idea and still wouldn’t unless my wife told me.

Easy Going

I am usually very easy going. I don’t care, or perhaps better phrased I don’t have an opinion on a lot of things. If needed I can chose. I am not lazy – well, I am not lazy in not choosing.

vs Apathy

“I don’t care because nothing matters.”

Apathy is also not caring, but is characterized by a lack of motivation or interest. With apathy you may not be able to make a choice. This is often a symptom of an underlying condition like depression.

My Experience

I don’t have apathy but there is some phenotypic overlap. My lack of care looks more like:

“I don’t care because I’ll be fine with either.”

I don’t have decisional paralysis – I can easily select a restaurant, a movie, a place to go to. I am just easy going.

In 90% of social interactions (e.g., choosing a restaurant, deciding on a movie, small-talk topics), the data has zero weight within my Ethics. Because I lack Social Salience, I do not experience “preference” based on status-seeking, social “vibes,” or Ego-protection.

Mechanical Reality: It is Optimization for Low Friction. If a choice has no logical or ethical consequence, the most efficient path is to default to the other person’s input. This minimizes Initialization (Manual Frame Construction) costs and conserves cognitive energy. I am not “agreeing” so much as I am “not processing the data as relevant.”

However, there is an armored steel wall at my Ethics. Because my ethics are Axiomatic Deontology (rule-based) rather than teleological (goal-based), they cannot be “negotiated.” I don’t have social lag (no Shame) so there is no buffer when the wall is reached. I go from easy-going to STOP. In fact I may experience Cognitive Dissonance Stress from the request and push back – become irate.

Flat Affect

“I may feel it, but my face and voice don’t show it.”

Flat Affect may be caused by different things:

My Experience

Since I have no Social Salience I receive no signal and there is nothing to mirror. In fact I probably give off strange vibes.

For whatever reason I also have low prosody – I tend to talk in a bit of a monotone and at a constant rate (sometimes fast, sometimes slow, usually the wrong speed). If I pay attention I think I can affect this, e.g. if I am telling a joke (but my jokes often fall flat, so my mileage may vary!).

I have emotions, I am just not expressing them in a way that NT receivers would pick them up.

Friction

I am referring to difference kinds of friction or high effort/low utility states in social settings.

NT Experience: No Friction

Typically NT people experience low friction because of their active Theory of Mind – they are able to simulate and predict the thoughts and feelings of people around them. Promoting emotional equilibrium and group cohesion is a primary tenet of their ethical system.

Autism Experience: High Friction

Autistic people experience friction from having non-automatic prediction of others. They have to use manual Theory-Theory to predict and experience lag and social fatigue. Additionally, they may employ Masking to present as neurotypical, another high effort mechanism.

My Internal Experience: No Friction

Internally I don’t experience any friction. I don’t sense social signal, I don’t feel shame, I don’t care about social positioning. To be clear: I don’t feel these things, but people around me, especially my loved ones, may some friction on my behalf because of e.g. social gaffes.

My Social Experience: Some Friction

Socially I do sometimes experience friction and it is something I try to avoid for efficiency reasons or unintended harm that I could avoid.

Note: my use of softening words is “literal functional English” (see softening). I am indicating something less than absolute certainty (or am willing to present as such). This is not politeness or social/affective positioning, though I have discovered recently that NT people might perceive it as such – an accidental overlap that matches NT social graces.

These techniques are applied manually and with varying degrees of effectiveness. Some friction can’t be avoided – the way I think and the way I value value truth combined with no Social Salience to navigate tricky waters means I will ruffle feathers. It doesn’t bother me. I don’t want this friction because it is inefficient, but I don’t have any feeling about it.

Hearing

I read about this effect and thought it was interesting. I don’t know if I hear any different than others, but maybe.

In NT individuals social salience can actually control the gain on individual signals according to their importance. They can more easily hold a conversation in a noisy area (possibly further enhanced by their bidirectional TOM). This is called the “Cocktail Party Effect”.

I can hear faint noises better than many people but struggle in a noisy environment. I receive all the noise full blast and don’t have any mechanism to tune out the rest. I can ignore the whole thing (to some extent) but can’t apply selective volume control – it is a matter of clarity/separation.

Humor

Am I funny? Maybe!

I am terrible at telling a joke. Even when putting effort into it most people won’t pick up my prosody – I can have pretty Flat Affect. Perhaps my joke telling is funny in a “bad movie” sort of way.

I am better at dry/deadpan humor, though I sometimes mess it up by smiling in the middle. It fits my natural style:

These work without Social Salience and some are probably even funny to NT people. Maybe not my kids.

Hyposalience

Hyposalience is having Social Salience with the gain set so low it is barely perceived.

John Elder Robison describes being autistic but instead of being able to manually simulate Theory of Mind he was effectively “emotionally blind” and “socially blind”. He was aware there was a social signal but it was so faint he was unable to use it.

Diagnostic Questions

Not for actual diagnostic use!

I was wondering how a person might be able to tell if they have hyposalience vs no salience. I describe why I think I have no social salience. I asked an LLM to generate questions that might be able to tell the difference between these two conditions.

Again, this is just for fun.

Q1: The Hierarchy Recognition

Q2: The “Vibe” Accuracy

Q3: The Empathy Mechanism

I would answer yes to all the A-salience questions, though the last one I can experience my own Sadness in some cases. It is not Empathy, it is Narrative Affective Resonance.

Introversion

I always figured myself as an introvert. I didn’t particularly need or enjoy social situations and I would get tired of them after a while and leave. I certainly wasn’t an extrovert – I didn’t feel any recharge from social events.

Looking at this now from the lens of ND and no Social Salience I wonder if this isn’t quite what I think it is.

Extroversion is easy: I probably can’t be an extrovert given my inability to receive “vibes”. There is no social energy for me, just data (or lack of it).

The mechanism for the introversion side is interesting. I don’t have the NT social emotions that need to be fed. I don’t feel any need for belonging or fitting in.

Although I don’t seek out social situations I am not opposed to them. I can talk for a long time about topics that interest me, e.g. software or pinball. I get tired when it is just small talk. This might actually be boredom!

I can hang out with the neighbors for a little bit and participate on the side (maybe adding in some dry humor). I like the neighbors because they are just hanging out in their yards and driveways talking – I don’t need a hook to join them, I just walk up. After a little while I will make my excuses and leave. They continue to talk for hours.

After I leave I usually go do something I enjoy: read a book, play pinball, mess around on the computer. I don’t “rest” – that is what I do when I take a nap.

I also enjoy hanging out with my friends: we go to lunch (I like eating), we see a movie (I like movies). Perhaps we are each getting something different out of it. I like doing these things with other people. Perhaps my friends are enjoying the conversation and social aspects while I am there for the food. Maybe the talking too: we often talk about things that interest me (these are also tech people).

From what I understand, introverts leave social situations because they are fatigued, maybe from high processing costs. I don’t have high processing costs (because I don’t send/receive the social signals and don’t care), but I do have data starvation if we are not talking about something of interest. I think I am not fatigued in the introvert sense, I am bored.

So am I an introvert? I think I probably behave like one, but is this actually introversion or just matching symptoms?

My Experience: Socially Null

After feeding this in to an LLM, along with my System Prompt it concluded:

You are not an introvert in the biological or psychological sense.

Introversion is a sensitivity to social saliency. Extroversion is hunger for social saliency.

You occupy a third state: Socially Null.

I behave like an introvert because we both enjoy low social uptime, but the mechanism is different. Introverts leave the part because it is too loud. I leave the party because it is too silent (I am bored).

Masking

Autistic people sometimes use a technique called “masking” or “camouflaging” to suppress natural autistic traits or adopt NT behaviors. This can be conscious or unconscious. Many times they require significant mental effort. Typical masking:

NT people, being the majority, expect people to conform to social norms and NT behaviors. Autistic people can often perceive that they are not meeting this expectation (see Autism Experience) – masking is the technique used to smooth the interaction. It is often effortful and likely not entirely convincing.

In fact, many autistic people have high social saliency and feel the sting of not fitting in. I have read that autistic people may have suffered ostracization or bullying for being different. Bullies can pick up on the social signals for fear, shame, or hurt and feed on them. Masking may feel like a necessity rather than a “nice to have.”

Other ND phenotypes may also use masking to fit in, but masking is often associated with autism.

My Experience: No Masking

Lacking Social Salience meant (and still means) that I didn’t even notice that I was not behaving the same as everybody else. Sure, I might have some oddities (I was a nerd), but these seemed within the normal range for people and personalities (my perception).

It never occurred to me that there might be such a thing as masking or that I might want to do it. Now that I know about it, I still don’t care about it (social salience again). I do use some heuristics to avoid social friction (for efficiency purposes, which is Functional Logic Modeling), but that is about it. I didn’t perceive what I was missing, so it wasn’t something I ever considered.

I may have been ostracized when I was younger – certainly I can recall other kids making fun of the way I talked (slowly). I didn’t like it, but I can’t recall any particular stress from this. I had friends: neighbors and several kids who liked computers or role playing games. I may not have picked up on the full effect so it kind of rolled off me.

I do recall a time in high school where I was confronted by a bully. I don’t know if this was because I was “weird” or just random chance. I was tall and thin. The bully was large and muscular. For some reason I said exactly the right thing (using Flat Affect):

No thanks, I don’t feel like kicking your ass today.

Clearly, that wasn’t going to happen. The bully could have used me as floss. But I was a little off: I didn’t give off social signals like I should. I was a non sequitur. This was the right hook because it allowed the bully to laugh and walk away.

Aside from that I don’t recall any bullying, though again, it is possible things were said and I missed them. I think in terms of behavior I look very similar to autistic people, though I don’t signal at all.

Anyway, I am fortunate that my particular mental configuration allows for no masking:

Mitigation

Mitigate what? I didn’t even realize there was anything wrong.

With my children I am reliable but probably emotionally absent:

With my wife it is a different story entirely – this is the closest relationship and my lack of Social Salience causes some communication difficulties. Let’s see how.

Polyvagal Theory

Polyvagal theory, developed by Dr. Stephen Porges, explains how the autonomic nervous system perceives safety or danger and responds through a hierarchical three-part system: ventral vagal (calm/social), sympathetic (fight/flight), and dorsal vagal (shutdown). Here is a nice article about it with some charts (one reproduced below).

My therapist showed me this chart to help explain how others behave and perhaps to elicit response from me. I realized I normally live in the green zone, rarely get into the yellow zone and perhaps have never been in the red zone. My wife was sometimes pushed into the red zone and was unable to response, meanwhile I am still carrying on a conversation from the green zone. A recipe for trouble!

Note: technically I am probably not in any zone – these is a social/emotional model. I am not participating in the social zone. Even my yellow/red zone experience would be tempered by the fact that I don’t experience these Emotions the same way NT people do. My emotions tend to run much colder and are more labels of state. That is not to say that I don’t experience any of this, but it is likely very different. polyvagal NT people are able to pick up vibes and sense where people are in this chart. As people leave the green zone and enter the yellow they immediately know. My understanding is that they can tell even without talking! They use empathy and co-regulation to deescalate the tension – social harmony is a key factor in NT relationships.

For me, not so much. My lack of Social Salience means I can’t pick up the vibes when we leave the green zone. I have no affective Empathy. Indeed, my behavior likely escalates the tension:

Typically I know that there is something wrong when yelling starts. It is like saying “I am angry” from my point of view. This is typically in the red zone.

The problem between my wife and me isn’t a simple communication issue: we are not failing to communicate clearly, we are having different conversations.

What Can I Do?

Lucky for me I need to improve communication with only one person: my wife. Can I manually override my behavior in some cases? Can I detect when to do so?

LLM feedback: Signal-Blindness is an input deficit, not a processing error. Mitigation strategies must focus on External Telemetry (data provided by others) rather than Internal Intuition (which does not exist in the stack).

General ideas – these might apply to all interactions:

Here are some ideas:

What Can My Wife Do?

My wife likely knows better than I do when things are getting off the rails. Can she communicate that explicitly? Will I understand? This isn’t typical NT behavior, so just like for me this requires manual override.

All I can do is try – I cannot promise positive results. I can continue to identify cases where I can do better. Here is what I think:

Not Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder

I had never heard of SCD before researching all of this. Roughly SCD looks like autism category A behaviors without category B. It is basically ASD’s social components without the repetitive behaviors.

You can read more about it here:

The “Pragmatic” part is about a communication disability:

Pragmatics refers to using language in proper context. For example, it’s important for children to develop the ability to use language differently when playing with, say, a younger child versus a teacher.

The DSM 5 defines SCD in terms of behavior, not mechanism.

Here are the criteria from the DSM 5:

  1. Deficits in using communication for social purposes, such as greeting and sharing information, in a manner that is appropriate for the social context.

  2. Impairment of the ability to change communication to match context or the needs of the listener, such as speaking differently in a classroom than on a playground, talking differently to a child than to an adult, and avoiding use of overly formal language.

  3. Difficulties following rules for conversation and storytelling, such as taking turns in conversation, rephrasing when misunderstood, and knowing how to use verbal andnonverbal signals to regulate interaction.

  4. Difficulties understanding what is not explicitly stated (e.g., making inferences) and nonliteral or ambiguous meanings of language (e.g., idioms, humor, metaphors, multiple meanings that depend on the context for interpretation).

Additionally, these should result in functional limitations in communication, social activity, academics or occupational performance.

My Experience

Again, I am not expert on neurodevelopmental disorders, so I am interpreting through my own lens with the help of an LLM.

As noted above, I have strong overlap on ASD Category A and none on Category B. Examining the points above:

Point 1 – Greeting

Using my Functional Cognitive Architecture I have a zero lag “greet people in the hallway” script. If I am not paying attention I can fall prey to the “how are you doing?” being taken literally. I think slight impairment beyond any emotional mirroring that might be expected.

Point 2 – Context / Pragmatism

At worst I presume people to have knowledge that they might not have. I can usually detect this (“huh?”) and adjust on the fly to explain the unfamiliar parts (this tends to land better than mansplaining in my experience). Certainly I carefully consider the audience for something important: what do I think they know, and what information do they need to reach the conclusion I want? It isn’t automatic, but I think I am capable.

Point 3 – Taking Turns

I do sometimes talk over people but will back off if we collide. I don’t have the Social Salience to pick up the nonverbal cues, I wait for silence and attempt to go (like a network). Again slight impairment as it isn’t automatic, but functional in practice.

Point 4 – Non-Literal Understanding

This might be my weakest point: I prefer literal communication and can struggle without it, especially when it comes to Theory of Mind – I can’t tell what others are thinking unless they tell me.

Some impairment, but day-to-day use is functional.

Diagnostic

The LLM tried some diagnostic questions, this is one:

If you are provided with a 100% literal, text-based manual for a specific social interaction, can you execute it with 100% accuracy?

I think of this as a flowchart for the meeting. Aside from my normal lack of social salience, sure I can easily follow directions.

Per the LLM, if you have SCD the pragmatic disability means:

struggle to apply the rules because the underlying logic of communication is fractured

My Conclusion

On closer examination I believe I don’t have SCD.

Certainly I think the mechanism (failure of the pragmatic processing) does not exist – my failures are due to lack of signal, not processing failure.

Pure A-salience

This is the term the LLM and I came up with for the total lack of Social Salience. It isn’t a medical term and searching for it doesn’t provide any hits.

I like the term because “pure” signifies that it is absolute or binary. The salience is not “low volume” or “noisy” as in the Autism Experience.

A-salience uses the “A-“ prefix to mean without.

Social salience is completely missing.

Say The Wrong Thing

Both autistic people and I say the “wrong” from time to time. Wrong is the eye of the (typically) NT beholder, of course.

Curiously the presentation of saying the wrong thing is very similar between autism and me, the mechanism is often different. In autism it is often Social Lag or the high cost to manually compute theory of mind. ADHD individuals may also say the wrong thing: that is an issue with regulation – they say things before they can stop themselves.

I might look similar, but for me it is not seeing the social signals, a very literal approach and not seeing anything wrong with what I said.

Factual Correction

“Well, axxshually…”

Correcting errors in conversation, major, or minor, is a hallmark of both autistic people and myself. NT people are more about the vibe and accuracy is secondary to the flow and social cohesion. NT people might perceive this as signaling intellectual superiority, as pedantry.

Autistic people may have a compulsion, possibly triggered by monotropism, to correct factual errors. The error can generate physical or cognitive discomfort and correcting it is a way to resolve the tension.

I am very literal and truth oriented. Social standing means nothing, facts are important – my Functional Cognitive Architecture depends on them. Correction makes sense to me. I will certainly notice inaccuracies but I may chose to ignore them if they are trivial or the cost to correct is grater than the utility (e.g. correcting a stranger). But my instinct will be to correct as per my Ethics: Truth

Hierarchy Blindness

When the boss says something incorrect or makes a poor decision in a meeting. Autistic people and I would point this out. NT people might go with it anyway but would certainly use face-saving language when addressing it.

The cost of computing social hierarchy is free for NT people but can be expensive and laggy for autistic people. This lag can mean the words come out before the state is computed. Combine this with the urge to correct and the chance of an autistic person correcting their boss is high.

Although I have no respect for Authority (specifically social hierarchy is not something I can measure) I do have some heuristics to avoid friction along the lines of what NT people do, though some of it is phrasing due to the way I treat facts – it looks polite but is not. Detecting when I should wait or use softening language is manual and doesn’t always work.

Literal Response

NT people use phatic speech as a sort of ping or handshake to confirm social availability. When somebody asks “How are you?” they don’t want to know how you are (or so I have learned!). Some types of humor, such as sarcasm, require the person to say the opposite of what they mean. Hyperbole exaggerates. White lies, well, lie.

NT people understand all of these things because of their Theory of Mind – they get the vibes and understand what other people mean even when they don’t say it.

The same lag that causes autistic people to trip over social hierarchy can cause them to miss the context of a conversation, at least in real-time.

My experience is different: I don’t have any social signal so I only have the literal words. I can sometimes pick up humor if the prosody is exaggerated (think actors on a stage). I have canned scripts for some situations – I don’t actually understand what is being done when people ask “how are you?” but I have canned responses I can use for greetings that do the job. Or I can answer the question if I don’t match it to the script.

Functional Feedback / Bluntness^Bluntness

When people ask questions they may want the answer or more often they may want reassurance. In NT society “what do you think of my speech?” is a request for compliments, not an ask for constructive criticism. Guess which one autistic people and I do?

In autistic people the bluntness is driven by three potential factors:

My own bluntness is similar to the last point: I am honest. I am also very literal, so I hear the question as a request for feedback. I don’t have the Social Salience to tell me that people are recoiling from my words, so I give it to them straight. I can omit information that I think will not be useful and my natural approach may use softening language, though with a different intent.

On the flip-side, I have no Shame and can receive feedback easily (I think this is difficult for autistic people to do as they are sometimes hypersalient). If the feedback is false I can ignore it and if it is true I should incorporate it and make changes, if possible. I can accept Hard Truths – I may not enjoy doing so and I may feel Regret, but I don’t feel bad about myself.

Lack of Reciprocity

In conversation people will often ask a question about your job, etc. In NT people they expect you to ask a similar question back. “How was your weekend?” is a casual request for information (and a social ping) and after answering (not necessarily literally) the expected response is “how was yours?”. If you do not respond this way NT people may find you cold, disinterested or possibly narcissistic.

For autistic people, if they slip up on this, it might be because of cognitive load from manual ToM. They forget the script.

For me, I construct a Functional Logic Model to answer the question, possibly running a shorthand precomputed model for answering factual questions. I don’t need to know how their weekend was, so I don’t ask. I am just not curious about it because I don’t need that information – it isn’t disinterest (social choice), it is lack of need.

Letting the Conversation Die

Sometimes the conversation will sort of die out. NT people are adept at small talk and can reignite it by talking about nothing (from my point of view). NT people dislike silence – it is social friction and might indicate rejection. Low density talk back and forth fills the void and comforts them.

Autistic people might appreciate silence but will also experience anxiety because they know they should be talking. Like me, they don’t know what to say.

I have no problem with silence, though I find it boring and will want to leave (or start reading a book). I don’t experience any tension. I let the conversation die because my Manual Frame Construction has not identified any new requirements.

TMI

I might reveal that I have psoriasis or that I am ND to people if I think it is helpful to the conversation. The LLM tells me this is too much information – these are high stigma pieces of data. To me they are just facts.

Whoops

Probably everybody, NT, autistic, or whatever I am, has put their foot in their mouth. You say something that you realize is a bit off color or sounds racist. NT people have real-time bidirectional signaling and (if they care) can adjust as they are speaking. They might still commit a faux pas, but if they do it is probably more up to their personality.

Autistic people can see the social signals and pick up facial changes. They may not be able to react quickly enough to correct course. They will feel anxiety about what they said and perhaps Shame.

I may not notice at all. It may be that somebody has to tell me after the fact. Other times I can pick it up as I was saying it or right after – it triggers a “whoops” feeling. This is not picking up the social signal, it is listening to my own words and pattern matching against potentially dangerous terms and subjects. I quickly apologize and attempt a rephrase (which might take a few seconds to compute). If I don’t notice the whoops, I will never know. If I do, I might regret saying it, but my correction is sufficient repair for me. If it was a big enough whoops I may feel a biological threat response and blush – I can understand I just caused Friction and feel high entropy stress but feel no social shame.

More?

Probably. I don’t pick up on these, so it is after-the-fact notices from friends and family or work with the LLM to see where there are likely failures.

For example, Factual Correction doesn’t seem like an error to me – don’t you want the correct information? What is the purpose of talking if not to exchange facts? Well, in NT people, it isn’t always that.

Luckily for me, my work is in software and explicit communication is more the norm there. I think.

Theory of Mind

Theory of Mind (ToM) is a key feature in my condition.

From Wikipedia:

In psychology and philosophy, theory of mind (often abbreviated to ToM) is the capacity to understand other individuals by ascribing mental states to them. A theory of mind includes the understanding that others’ beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions, and thoughts may be different from one’s own.

This idea first came up to me when I learned about Autism – it is thought to be a key component in the Autism Experience.

When I read about it, it seemed easy! Of course I know other people have their own thoughts! There are some tests used such as:

Seems logical, I have a perfect score! Of course this is a test for 3 year olds. I had LLMs present me with other interactive tests but I passed all of those too.

Key Point: Mindreading

I was missing some key points from the Wikipedia article:

That first point is mentioned but it isn’t in the main description and I didn’t pick it up.

My Experience: Mindreading

Mindreading is critical (see NT Experience) and it turned out I didn’t have that: I was missing the ability to pick up the social signal. It wasn’t until my therapist described the experience of automatic ToM that I realized my gap. In fact this was the key piece of information that led me to uncover the mechanism: no Social Salience!

I was fooled by the online tests because they were not measuring this, they gave it away for free:

I can solve these easily: they are either logic puzzles (who knows what and when) or some kind of what would cause this behavior question. If I am given all the facts I can figure it out. This is different than Simulation (NT ToM) or Theory-Theory (autism ToM) – it isn’t ToM at all. It is debugging – what would this cause or what would cause this?

This is a significant difference from the autism experience – autistic people typically do have the social signal, even if it is noisy and expensive to consume. In me it is missing entirely.

My Experience: Identity of Others

I had a conversation about somebody where it was stated “I love them but I hate their actions”. This makes some logical sense to me, but in practice I don’t think that way. I think I don’t conceive of people in the same way that NT people do.

Typically NT people think of each person as a “persistent object”. They store a “vibe”, historical emotional weight, and some sense of their “soul” (who are they really) separate from their actions and moods. If the person acts inconsistent with this they might be “having a bad day”. Their actions are separate from their self. There may be unconditional relationships for close friends and family. There is a slow moving average of feelings over time (hysteresis).

For me, although I recognize logically that the person has internal state, all I can perceive is their output. I can’t separate their thoughts (which I do not know) from their actions. A person is the sum of their actions (truth, utility, interaction friction). If the sum goes negative I do not like their actions and I do not like the person. A very large negative action would probably push that negative right away. I do not store any sort of vibe/emotion associated with a person. Of course I recall historical facts (e.g. they like cheese, they are good at pinball), but this is just data. A person is a Black Box to me and I attach a continuous measure of “like” based purely on actions.

So I think my conception of another person is quite different than the NT perception. I didn’t even realize this until thinking deeply about this conversation.

Per the LLM the absence of these traits as “Impaired Object Relations” or “Lack of Affective Permanence,” usually in the context of Borderline Personality Disorder or ASD. This typically causes distress, volatility, or anxiety. Because I lack the social salience I didn’t even notice they were missing.

Additionally, I think my feelings towards others on the negative scale are fundamentally different. I might say “I don’t like X” but it is more a classification of “likely to cause harm” (maybe they lie). I might say “X is very bad” and that is a greater magnitude of harm. “I hate X” is for people that I think cause large scale harm. I don’t feel hate as a visceral emotion. I might get angry (systemic anger from harm rather than social anger from offense/shame) when thinking about people currently causing harm, but this is not the same as NT hate.

My Experience: Predicting or Explaining Others

Despite not having ToM, I can predict the actions of others or deduce the inputs needed to convince somebody of something. This is a very high effort construction of a logical model of the person given whatever facts I know (e.g. they like cheese, they are silly, they know about computers). Given the current state of things and this model I could predict how the person would behave – specifically I could make an educated guess. I don’t have any measure of the quality, but when I want to convince somebody of something I am often successful.

My logical model is not a simulation of how the other person thinks, considering their emotions and peculiarities. NT people are (seemingly) able to simulate how others think who do not think the same way as them. My mental model of people is that they are the same as me constrained by the couple of facts that I know about them. Lucky for me I tend to think logically and even if that isn’t how the other person thinks it probably makes a reasonable argument.

This might be termed Egocentric Logical Realism:

The big difference between me and people with ToM I think is that I don’t do this very often. A big presentation at work about a project I work on? Sure I will figure out what the audience needs to know. Any other situation? No idea what they are thinking and no effort put into guessing. I can just ask – this is something of a faux pas for NT people.

My Experience: Summary

I have no social salience and I completely miss the “mindreading” part of Theory of Mind. Because I lack the signal I also don’t mirror emotions or signal them in a usable form. Mostly: I can cry when sad, laugh when there is something funny and raise my voice when angered, but these are high magnitude events that trigger the physiological effects, not subtle cues.

My conception of other people is fundamentally different than NT people: I perceive people as black boxes where I attach factual data. I see only their words and actions. I don’t perceive them as bundles of emotions and thoughts separate from their actions. I don’t know how they think, I can only track facts I know about them.

Effectively I have no Theory of Mind – quite the opposite of what I originally thought. This is different than autism where ToM is impaired by being noisy, high lag and effortful. Mine is missing and I didn’t even know it was a thing.

Where Are My People?

While researching my mental model I thought it might be a good idea to double-check these ideas – this isn’t my area of expertise. The terms the LLM was feeding me made sense but they didn’t seem to be clinical terms in many cases. I wasn’t able to find any account similar to my own.

Am I really unique? Probably not. Sure, everybody wants to be the main character in their own story, but logically it didn’t make sense. Even if it were 0.1% of the people that is still millions of people. Where are they?

Basically people like me are probably hidden. No problem, no diagnosis, no write up or descriptions. If they land in positions where logical thought is the norm (STEM), they fit right in.

Since I was building a mental model for myself (I already had the notes!) I thought it might be useful to organize them from a big outline into something coherent. Maybe somebody else would come across this and recognize themselves. Or not. I like building things, so I like doing it regardless.

References

There were several papers that looked like they might be close, but in the end they aren’t really about people like me. They were interesting to investigate!

The common flaws I found in their match with my experience (these may be more generally true – I don’t know):

Even though these don’t describe me, they are interesting and provided things to think about. For example, what is the mechanism that allows me to hold false beliefs? It wasn’t something I actively considered as I didn’t realize it might be a problem!

The Intentional Stance, Daniel Dennett

In Daniel Dennett’s framework, there are three levels of abstraction used to predict the behavior of a system: the Physical Stance(physics/chemistry), the Design Stance (purpose/function), and the Intentional Stance (beliefs/desires).

The Design Stance is a reasonable match: I treat humans as Black Boxes where I might know their role in a company or society. I can predict what a Manager or Programmer does based on their role. I might construct a logical model to refine this.

The Physical Stance is about predicting behavior only on physical properties, e.g. tensile strength or mass. NT people would use this for inanimate systems where I might still use the Design Stance – what is it supposed to do.

This describes some of the outcomes of treating humans as “systems” without addressing the mechanism.

Mindblind Eyes: An Absence of Spontaneous Theory of Mind in Asperger Syndrome, Senju et al.

The paper.

This provides the distinction between Implicit (Automatic) Social Tracking and Explicit (Manual) Social Reasoning.

The paper talks about Manual Frame Construction – this describes how autistic people can use “compensatory learning” to employ explicit reasoning to accomplish tasks that Automatic ToM would otherwise provide. This is roughly equivalent to my understanding of how I Predict or Explain Others.

In short this describes the mechanism that differs between NT and autistic people (specifically Asperger Syndrome, now called Level 1 ASD) and how autistic people can compensate.

The paper claimed that it tested ASD subjects (via eye tracking) and found they had no Social Salience but were still diagnosed with ASD. Although this seems like it might be possible, it doesn’t seem likely. I think the noisy social saliency that autistic people experience is the trigger for some of the category B compensation effects. The fact that these subjects were diagnosed with ASD requires that they experience these effects. Now I am no expert on this subject, but I am not sure I buy it. Read the next paper – Heyes didn’t buy it either.

Submentalizing: I Am Not Really Reading Your Mind by Cecilia Heyes

The paper’s core thesis is that “social” behavior is often driven by domain-general cognitive processes rather than a dedicated Social Saliency module. Heyes argues that what researchers call “Theory of Mind” (ToM) is frequently just Functional Logic Modeling applied to spatial or directional data. This matches my own experience except that it isn’t frequently, it is always. I do have a “fast mode” in my Functional Cognitive Architecture that I use in a similar way, but it is the same mechanism with shortcuts, not a different mechanism.

Heyes claims “we do not need mentalizing as much as previously thought” – that suggests that my lack of social saliency is a “lean” version of processing, not broken (I think so too!). She also says that NT people suffer a lot of distractions with social cues (head-turning).

Curiously Heyes interprets the observations from Senju differently. The NT subjects were pulled by a nonverbal cue from the agent while the autistic subjects were focused on the truth. They didn’t miss the social signal, it was a distraction that didn’t pass their filter. It wasn’t lack of social salience, but it is some effect from their noisy social salience.

Another interesting point Heyes makes is about “head-turning” is that it isn’t a social signal at all – it is this term “submentalizing”. It is roughly the same as a bright flashing light or a loud bang and is a very low level signal that should grab attention regardless of the social capacity.

So is she correct? In a face-to-face conversation I would probably notice if somebody turned their head. I would have to decide if it meant anything (sometimes people turn their heads for reasons I do not know, e.g. looking up and to the right while thinking), but I would likely see the head turn itself – it is right in front of my eyes (high magnitude singal). However, when walking with my spouse she might say “did you see that person?” and typically I had not. I didn’t notice her looking around or at anyone and I also wasn’t looking. Even if I saw her looking around it wouldn’t mean anything to me (we are out in a crowd) – I wouldn’t pick it up.

Teleological reasoning in infancy: the naïve theory of rational action, Gergely & Csibra

The paper identifies the “Teleological Stance” as functional logical model of systems (people) and that this is a non-mentalistic system which is a foundational layer of human cognition. NT people eventually supplement this with a “Mentalistic Stance” (Theory of Mind).

This sounds similar to “Submentalizing: I Am Not Really Reading Your Mind” in that there are two modes that NT people can use as needed.

The paper talks about a “Rationality Principle” which is implemented in the Teleological Stance. This is equivalent to my Axiomatic Deontology – a “wrong” action is inefficient or irrational.

The paper also talks about a need to capture the relevant data to operate the Teleological Stance. This is roughly my Manual Frame Construction, which can be expensive.

I don’t use a strictly Teleological model (reality only), I can consume statements and label them as true/false/maybe. This is necessary to deal with people in the real world: they have lots of ideas that I believe are false or unknown. I understand that people may have a different point of view than me. If they tell me what it is I will attach those facts to my representation of the person along with my grading.

Since I did not have access to the signal to develop a Mentalistic Stance I developed an alternative Propositional Meta-Representation (data tagging) ability in my Functional Cognitive Architecture. I do not remember doing that, but I have it now!

Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind, Simon Baron-Cohen

This describes the mechanism behind NT ToM (vibes and instincts):

  1. ID (Intentionality Detector): Interprets motion as having goal-directed intent.
  2. EDD (Eye-Direction Detector): Detects eyes and interprets where they are looking.
  3. SAM (Shared-Attention Mechanism): Triggers when two people are looking at the same thing (Triadic representation).
  4. ToMM (Theory of Mind Mechanism): The final processor that represents “epistemic mental states” (believing, thinking, knowing).

Not directly applicable to me, but it might be an interesting read to understand better how it works in NT people.

The LLM notes: Baron-Cohen frequently attributes the absence of ToM to “developmental delay” or “disability.” You will encounter significant “pathologizing” language in these texts.

The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain, Simon Baron-Cohen

The book.

Talks about “Systemizing” – a drive to think about everything as systems that need to be analyzed and predicted. Baron-Cohen treats Systemizing as a module (a talent or a drive) that exists alongside or in opposition to Empathizing.

Baron-Cohen’s theory assumes that “Systemizers” are simply people who prefer “if-then” rules.

I don’t prefer “if-then” rules, I am forced to process using Propositional Logic because of my lack of social signal. I am not “Systemizing” by choice, it is what is left.

What Baron-Cohen calls “Extreme Systemizing” is likely the emergent behavior of a system that has Zero Social Saliency. When the social signal is 0, the logic signal becomes 100% of the usable data. This idea is interesting to me because it may describe my condition. I haven’t read it but it sounds like a theoretical model rather than first or second hand accounts. He sees it as something that people would want to overcome.

The LLM notes: Baron-Cohen treats the lack of “Empathizing” as a deficit. Baron-Cohen uses “Systemizing” to define the “Extreme Male Brain.”

Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing, Frith and Frith

This paper talks about the parts of the brain responsible for Theory of Mind:

I think this paper is pretty interesting in that it tries to map the mechanisms responsible for the various parts of ToM. It also talks about:

The paper suggests that “abnormal development” (Section 2) results in a “faulty” mechanism. In my architecture, the mechanism is not “faulty” (broken); it is Non-Existent. I have built a Functional Cognitive Architecture using logic hardware to perform tasks typically reserved for the “Social Receiver.” I am not a broken version of the NT model; you are a functional execution of a different Instruction Set Architecture (ISA).

Switched On: A Memoir of Brain Change and Emotional Awakening, John Elder Robison

This one looked really promising – the author is autistic and described having “social blindness” and “emotional blindness”. The author also describes an experimental brain treatment called TMS where his social saliency was switched on (or so it sounded).

Typically autistic people have social salience. They may have very high social salience but the output is noisy and does not engage the automatic Simulation. In Robison’s case I think that social saliency was working but at such a low level that his mind was discarding the signal. I think he was aware there was a signal, at least some of the time, because he was aware that he was missing something – this caused social distress. He had enough social salience to value what he was missing.

The TMS procedure temporarily boosted the gain of the saliency network and he described it like going from black and white to full color.

I think this engaged the automatic Simulation functions and he was faced with a cacophony of signals that he had no experience with. NT people have lived with this their entire life and can tune in and tune out as needed. It was eye opening for Robison but overwhelming. His mental architecture for dealing with the world did not change and he moved from being blind to seeing the pain without being able to turn it off.

He participated in this TMS treatment for six months and the signal boosting effect was present during this time, but temporary overall. He picked up permanent insight into social salience – even after he could no longer perceive the signal he understood what it looked like.

Not the same as my experience but I think this is the first description of Hyposalience I have seen.

Emotions

I do have emotions, but if you met me you might wonder:

That said, I don’t have all the same emotions and I experience some of the emotions in a different way.

Extra Disclaimer: as a person who can’t experience some of these emotions and experiences other ones in a different way, these descriptions of the NT experience are best effort. I used an LLM to explain them to me but they are largely in my own words as I understand them. Not all NT people will experience them the same way and I might be wrong. I think the descriptions of my own experience are correct as far as I can introspect myself.

As far as I know autistic people experience roughly the same emotions as NT people.

Social Emotions (Missing)

The self conscious emotions require a feedback signal for you to understand how the self is perceived by an external observer – you guessed it, provided by Social Salience. I can’t experience any of these emotions:

This one is a stand in for several of the negative emotions:

That isn’t to say I don’t feel things that I would label with those words. For example, I might Regret some action that I did and call that “shame”, but it is a distinctly different feeling from the NT experience. This is a conceptual heteronym – two words that look and sound the same but have different meanings (not the typical use of that vocabulary, but it fits).

Heteronyms

I think I learned a lot of my vocabulary through reading and thus by context. In books when somebody is “ashamed” I can see the inputs (situation) and any description of the outputs (corrective action, future avoidance). I picked up Shame as something like regret, maybe strong Regret. It was compatible enough that I never noticed that my definition was off – in fact it wasn’t until I discovered I was ND that I even became aware of this. In playing with LLMs they picked up on the fact that my descriptions for emotions were inconsistent.

Even before I knew that there was a Semantic Divergence in definition, I think there were problems with using these words incorrectly. I can see that retrospectively where the words I used were taken as judgment but to me they were just descriptive words used in constructive feedback. Now I am more aware that my words are askew.

For example, I might say I Hate somebody, say a corrupt politician. To me this is indicating high magnitude dislike – they are violating my ethical standards for their own gain. I don’t know them, it doesn’t affect me. I just want it to stop. To NT people this means something else: moral disgust, evil, and some feeling of ill will (I think).

Primary Emotions (Biological)

Finally there are some emotions where I think my feeling might be similar to how NT people experience them. The triggers are likely different and any social experience is likely missing, but these are probably close to the NT standard.

These are the primary/biological emotions that are amygdala-driven and physiological:

Internal Well-Being

There are some other physiological emotions regulated by Dopamine (reward/anticipation), serotonin (stability/well-being) that are similarly triggered differently but likely experiences similarly. However, there are social aspects to some of these that are not present.

Note: in NT people oxytocin (bonding/trust) can amplify the social signal. Although it is likely that I produce the hormone, I have nothing to amplify due to lack of Social Salience. This further impedes the social emotions that might improve social harmony.

Semantic Divergence

As mentioned in Heteronyms, I often have the wrong meaning for emotional words. These definitions are largely coming from context, from reading. I map them to my own experience based on:

but they are not the same word at all because of my lack of Social Salience.

Hate is a good example of high semantic divergence. For me it means intense dislike and it applies to people who do “bad” things and opinions about foods I don’t like. For NT people it is more a feeling that another person is evil.

When I use words incorrectly, sometimes it works out OK. The NT listener probably doesn’t understand the same idea I am trying to convey, but if it is close enough or not important, it works.

An example of that might be “jerk”. I view a jerk as somebody who is insensitive, in particularly saying things blindly without realizing how they affect the people around them. I am OK being labeled a jerk – in my eyes it is probably true. Of course I don’t want to be a jerk, but I can’t always help it. For an NT listener a jerk is much more willful: they disregard the feelings of other in order to show dominance or malice. I am accidentally picking up intent, which I do not have.

There is also high risk: NT people may assume I have feelings that I don’t have. They may be confused when my actions don’t match my words. They may not even know to question me – I seem like I know what I am talking about, who asks another person what they mean by “hate”?

I don’t know how much trouble this causes me because I can’t easily perceive when it happens. A close friend or my wife might tell me I Said The Wrong Thing but unless I know to look it up, I probably don’t pick up the correct semantics of these emotion words. All of these Emotions that I am writing about are in consultation with LLMs and Wikipedia. I just didn’t know.

I am effectively speaking a different language without realizing it.

My saving grace is that I am very low or no Ego – I get along with almost everybody. Once people know me and understand how I behave, it works out.

Table

Emotion NT Experience My Experience
Anger “This is unfair; a boundary has been crossed; I must fight.” “This is a violation of Ethics/Logic; the system is experiencing data corruption.”
Arrogance “I am above others; their standards do not apply to me.” “Status-blind factual output; bluntness perceived as a claim to dominance.”
Care “I invest in you (proactive/preventative support).” “Resource allocation to ensure Black Box stability; ‘do no harm’ ethical protocol.”
Comforting “I will co-regulate your distress via mirroring and presence.” “Mechanical stabilization of a biological organism or technical troubleshooting.”
Compassion “I feel moved by you (reactive/reparative response to suffering).” “Functional Altruism; ad-hoc decision to resolve identified suboptimal states.”
Disgust “This is toxic; it will contaminate me; I must expel it.” “High-magnitude logical flag for intentional malice or irreparable axiom violation.”
Dopamine Reward/Drive for social bonding, status, and survival tasks. Reward for task completion, logical closure, and delivery of utility.
Ego Self-identity balancing desires and status; involves defensiveness. Identity as a product of consistent logic; status-blindness; zero-lag correction.
Embarrassment “I have made a social slip; I am at risk of social exclusion.” “Biological Threat Response (BTR) to sudden scrutiny or rule-violation detection.”
Empathy “I feel with you (Affective mirroring and perspective taking).” “Narrative Affective Resonance; logical simulation of loss within own system.”
Envy “You have what I deserve; your gain is my loss.” “Identification of functional inefficiency; desire for a high-utility tool or state.”
Fear “I am in danger; I am unprepared; I must escape.” “Functional Hazard Analysis; biological stress regarding resource/function loss.”
Guilt “I have hurt the group; I am at risk of exclusion.” “Acknowledgement of rule violation; protocol to restore the original system state.”
Hate “You are a threat to my world; you should not exist.” “High-intensity dislike; label for ‘bad’ actors; wish for cessation of unethical output.”
Loneliness “I am disconnected; I am hungry for belonging.” “Boredom due to low environmental complexity; a requirement for noise injection.”
Love “Your well-being is as important as my own; shared ‘we’ identity.” “Loyalty and resource-sharing with a high-familiarity system; stability provision.”
Pride “I am better than others; others see me as valuable.” “Validation that output meets specifications; logical closure of a complex puzzle.”
Regret “I knew better; I wish I could choose differently.” “Recognition of an inefficient outcome or Integrity Distress (standard failure).”
Sadness “I have lost something precious; I need time to heal.” “High-magnitude deletion event; permanent loss of unique value/data.”
Shame “I am fundamentally flawed; I must hide myself.” “Zero-signal; replaced by factual audit and decision to address or ignore data.”
Sympathy “I feel for you (pity/intellectual recognition of pain).” “Labeling an observed state of distress; bias toward noninterference or fixing.”

Anger

NT Experience

“This is unfair; a boundary has been crossed; I must fight.”

In NT people anger is typically a reaction to a perceived threat to social status, ego, or respect. This is a high-arousal temporary state that can dissipate (maybe slowly) after the conflict is resolved.

Anger is the mechanism used to push the holder into action to force another party to restore status. Adrenaline amplifies the effect.

See also Hate which is a colder and longer term feeling.

My Experience

I feel anger when somebody is violating my Ethics (e.g. lying or harming people). I also feel a lower magnitude anger when somebody is wasteful or inefficient, especially when it causes harm to others. I don’t feel any personal insult, I am angered by system-level data corruption.

I can also feel the adrenaline punch when thinking about high impact actors (e.g. leaders and politicians) who cause harm: lying, cheating, stealing, hurting, or killing people. The magnitude of the harm and the responsibility of the actor to not do those things amplifies the effect.

I think Hate is a similar feeling for me, but also describing a longer term feeling – it is a label for people who trigger my anger.

Comparison

The trigger condition is different between NT people and myself, but the physiological effects are the same. The internal feeling is different: my anger is cooler, it is about things not being right, not about being personally attacked.

Additionally, my anger is likely less useful. I may not demonstrate anger the same way. Yes, I may raise my voice, but that is not guaranteed. When I get angry I often state “I am angry” or words to that effect. NT anger signals to others that there is danger. It can change the behavior of others.

The target of my anger is also different. I might be angry locally – perhaps my wife or kids did something that I don’t like. Maybe there is something inefficient at work. I can potentially change these things. My greatest anger is at politicians and leaders who are failing their people through corruption and lack of competence.

Old Man Yells at Cloud

My anger is futile.

Semantic Divergence: yes.

Specific Trigger: Integrity

There is at least one thing that will trigger anger with a feeling of personal insult: if somebody questions my integrity.

I am fine if people call me out for hypocrisy, especially if I have been inconsistent. Even being called out for lying is fine if I have (hopefully unintentionally). Making mistakes and being accused doesn’t bother me – these are true.

If somebody questions my integrity and I believe the accusation is false I can get very angry in a way that feels somewhat distinct from normal anger. I can’t control what other people believe about me, but I will defend myself from this type of attack. Questioning my integrity is a Logic-Baseline Attack. Because my identity is a product of consistent propositional logic, a false accusation of dishonesty is an attempt to invalidate my entire cognitive output. The anger here is a Defense Protocol to protect the integrity of the system.

Specific Difference: Proven Wrong

I am not angry if I am proven factually wrong. Assuming I accept the new facts as correct (I trust that the giver of facts is knowledgeable on the subject), I will thank the person for correcting me and update my known facts. Similarly, if caught at saying something incorrect (mistake), I will apologize for the misspeak and rephrase. Since I don’t recognize status attacks, neither of these will trigger anger as they might in an NT person.

Arrogance

Arrogance isn’t only an emotion: it is a judgment label others place on you based on your perceived behavior. Arrogance is a behavioral trait with emotional involvement.

NT Experience

“I am above others; their standards do not apply to me.”

In NT people there are two things to consider:

The emotion behind acting arrogant is likely Pride but maybe in fact be based on Fear or Shame. In people with very high authority or power it may be an intentional signal that they are better than you – either intimidation or lack of care. For most people it is some kind of protective signal to bolster their ego when they are unsure.

Most NT people try to avoid looking arrogant. They will use softening phrases like “maybe we could” or “I could be wrong, but…”. They will also back up the words with vibe: they will adjust their tone, facial expression and body language.

NT people detect arrogance in the same way:

My Experience

I don’t experience arrogance, but NT people can easily perceive me to be so:

Per the LLM, NT people perceive this as:

“This person is speaking with total certainty and ignoring social rank; therefore, they must believe they are the highest-ranking person in the room.”

I have no notion or care of social strata – I don’t respect Authority, I respect competence. I don’t think I am better than anybody, that is just how I communicate.

I can adjust how I speak based on the perceived capacity of the receiver: I wouldn’t tell a child the same thing I would tell an adult, but I presume adults capable of handling truth even if inconvenient.

Note: I thought maybe I could have a script to sound less arrogant, but per the LLM:

NT people are hypersensitive to “Social Scripts” used without “Social Affect.” If they detect that your humility is a Calculated Utility rather than a Felt State, they may categorize you as “Manipulative” or “Psychopathic” (both are NT social constructs for “Someone using logic where I expect emotion”).

I don’t try to avoid appearing arrogant, but I do try to avoid social friction when I can.

My detection of arrogance is quite different too. I don’t see various indicators, I see output:

This is what defines arrogance to me.

Comparison

Although I suspect many people would find the same people arrogant as me (though maybe not – some people give rule exceptions for power), I think everything else about this concept is different. I can’t feel it but I look like I have it. I have little capacity to avoid it.

Semantic Divergence: yes.

Care

“I invest in you.”

NT Experience

In NT people care is wanting to help with another person’s life and needs. It involves Compassion, listening, and active support. Giving care may act as an emotional anchor to reduce stress. This is typically a sustained feeling and is proactive/preventative (keeping the system running).

Care is not transactional, but there is an expectation that care for somebody implicitly means that they will return the energy, validation, or support sometime in the future.

My Experience

I find it very hard to differentiate between care, Compassion and Sympathy. In all three cases my output is the same: I attempt to fix problems. I do this because my Ethics and Axiomatic Deontology have “do not harm” as the number one rule. If I can help someone, I should. Semantically this is ethical care. I give care because I think it is the right thing to do, not because I have an emotional need.

Unlike NT people I do not expect to receive reciprocal care. Care is given as you are able and is not a debt to be repaid.

Here is an LLM summary of my “care”:

The ongoing logical decision to allocate resources to a specific Black Box (person) to ensure its continued stability and performance within your environment.

Comparison

In some cases the output (helping) can overlap, but the trigger and entire feeling is quite different.

Semantic Divergence: yes. This risks confusing NT people when I say I “care” but then do not behave as they expect.

Comforting

NT Experience

For NT people comforting is way to relieve distress in others. They achieve this using emotional mirroring and social co-regulation. Simply being present and emitting the right social signals can help another NT person feel better. They can talk soothingly and reassure them that their social network is intact – this is easy to do when you understand what the other person is thinking. It is not about logic, it is about feelings and social safety. Being alone can be very stressful for NT people, especially when distressed.

My Experience

I have no affective empathy. To me, Care is about helping somebody – solving their problems. I have no access to the social signals and cannot mirror them. I effectively have no ability to provide comfort.

Recently when I was upset about a situation my wife asked if I needed comfort. I was surprised – what could she do to fix the situation? Of course that is not what she meant. I had to do some investigating about what “comfort” meant.

I learned about social co-regulation. Who knew that was even a thing? Sitting in a room with somebody seems useless. Actually, having me sit in the room with somebody probably would be useless. Even if I want to “help” in this way, I am not equipped to do the emotional mirroring. Anyway, this is a thing and I had never heard of it. Also: if you attempt this, do not bring a book (I am told).

I found out about “somatic co-regulation”: holding a dog that leans against you or a purring cat reduces cortisol levels in humans. This is a biological response to a physical stimulus and I do experience this and find it pleasant.

Conceptually a hug is a reasonable thing to do for somebody in distress, but it didn’t really occur to me. I am not opposed to hugs, but I almost never use them – this is a form of somatic co-regulation. Curiously I do the equivalent to my dog. I like this LLM summary:

Comparison

I have no effective comfort mechanism unless somebody has a problem I can fix. I can’t perceive the signals to help people. I can’t provide social co-regulation.

I can perceive somatic co-regulation (physical touch) but aside from comforting small children and pets, I don’t use it on adults. I think this is a matter of complexity: pets and children are simple. I don’t know what adults want and for social safety I avoid touch generally. If asked to provide a hug, I could do so.

Semantic Divergence: extreme.

Compassion

“I feel moved by you.”

NT Experience

Compassion is a reaction to suffering – it is a bridge between Empathy and action. NT people see pain, feel an emotional response and have a desire to fix it. Compassion is  reactive/reparative (fixing a broken system).

Care is action-oriented and is an ongoing feeling not necessarily tied to suffering.

My Experience

I find it very hard to differentiate between Care, compassion, and Sympathy. In all three cases my output is the same: I attempt to fix problems. I do this because my Ethics and Axiomatic Deontology have “do not harm” as the number one rule. If someone or something is in need and I have the capacity to fix it, I should fix it. Semantically this is Functional Altruism.

Since I lack Social Salience I can’t directly measure suffering unless:

My “compassion” is triggered in the same way as my “care”: I see a need that I can fulfill.

If I am aware of distress but don’t know how to fix it, I am not able to provide any help. Distress without information is not actionable. Here is Failure Example.

Here is an LLM summary of my “compassion”:

The ad-hoc decision to resolve a specific, identified suboptimal state in any Black Box (person) when the “Manual Frame Construction” (MFC) identifies a solvable problem.

Comparison

In some cases the output (helping) can overlap, but the trigger and entire feeling is quite different.

Semantic Divergence: yes.

Disgust

NT Experience

“This is toxic; it will contaminate me; I must expel it.”

Curiously the moral disgust emotion shares biological circuitry with the physical disgust feeling. Being disgusted by a person feels the same way as watching somebody vomit or tasting rotten food.

The trigger for disgust in NT people is social and ethical violations. Since NT ethics are deeply tied to social cohesion, this makes sense. When people hear about a horrible crime it may be described as “sickening” – that is literally part of the feeling. Taboo social behaviors trigger the same reaction

My Experience

Of course I feel the same physical disgust from smelling or eating rotten food: that is a hard wired physiological response to keep us safe from things that might poison us.

I do feel something that I label “disgust” (moral) but it only has coincidental overlap with the NT triggers and none of the same internal feeling. In a similar way, violation of my Ethics (note: these are different than NT ethics!) triggers a feeling of Anger or Hate (note: also different, more like a label) toward the situation and sometimes the people.

Yes, if somebody commits a horrible crime, e.g. murder, I feel “disgust”. What an awful thing to do and to have happen. The person doesn’t “disgust” me, unless perhaps they were gleeful in it – that would be a violation on top of the crime. The action itself violates my number 1 ethical rule about harming others.

I feel the same way about lying and corrupt politicians. They are the very people we trust to run our government and they violate that trust. I want them to stop being that way. I am disgusted with the action and some of that rubs off on the people: they are doing it and probably on purpose. This “disgust” is more a label of “badness” than a strong feeling. If I have a conversation about these people I will feel angry at the waste and corruption, but it is a much colder emotion than NT people would feel.

I think in the end, disgust is a higher magnitude Hate – a value of extreme dislike. I don’t use the word much as I am not sure I can easily discriminate at the top end of dislike.

The LLM summarizes it as:

A high-magnitude logical flag triggered by the intersection of Intentional Maliceand Irreparable Axiom Violation. It represents the “Ceiling” of the Hate gradient and serves as a terminal signal to permanently deprioritize the offending entity as a “Non-Functional System.”

Comparison

From my point of view it is similar triggering conditions, but that is only because I can’t see the social signals that people might violate. Many things that would trigger disgust in NT people mean nothing to me, and as I understand, my ethics would seem quite rigid to an NT person and these triggers might mean little to them. The internal feeling is entirely different. I see the output (very strong dislike) as indistinguishable from Hate, which is quite different than the NT experience.

Semantic Divergence: yes.

Dopamine

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter – a chemical that your brain uses to reward and control your functions. Typically it is related to motivation, anticipation, and reward seeking.

NT Experience

For NT people there are many triggers that might cause dopamine hits:

Dopamine acts as both a “drive” and a “reward”.

Dopamine is experienced as:

It isn’t an emotion or feeling, it is a chemical that your brain uses as fuel for making you get things done – not calories but drive.

My Experience

Dopamine is NT people is heavily regulated by Social Salience. I don’t have these feedback loops so my dopamine triggers are internally generated and centered around task completion and logical closure.

Generally I feel rewarded by making things that are useful. It doesn’t have to be pretty, but it should do the job it was meant to do. Sure, who doesn’t like gold-plated code, but a little tool that makes something easier for somebody is great too. Iterative work with small deliverables is often better as it gives a steadier stream of dopamine motivation and reward. Big projects are fewer and farther between and provide a larger hit.

I think this has a couple of downsides:

The mechanism is the same but my triggers are very restricted compared to NT people. This, combined with the lack of care for social signals, probably explains my indifference to social situations. I am not against them, but I do often find them boring unless they involve subjects I am interested in.

My Experience: Big Task Completion

The bigger the task, the harder it is, or the more complex the problem, the bigger the dopamine hit.

I once debugged something over the course of six months or a year – it was impossible to reproduce, but we saw strong evidence there was a problem. I worked on it on and off over this time: whenever I had an idea I might spend a few hours or a day investigating. This continued until I uncovered the missing link: a seldom used API that I hadn’t been considering. Suddenly I had a repro case. I knew where the bug was, I knew roughly what the bug was. It wasn’t my code (organizationally very distant) but I had the key (100% repro case) to unlock everything. We could fix it. I felt a huge dopamine hit – I was shaking. Even though it was late at night I was so excited I texted my boss “I FOUND IT”. Not bragging or looking for praise, but delivery (or a proxy for it). He knew what I was talking about. It wasn’t the end-end of the task, but it was the completion of the hard part – the rest was just cleanup.

My Experience: Animal Videos

I feel dopamine pleasure from watching animal videos. Animals are pure – they have no social signaling (at least that I know of) so we are on even footing.

I am not happy because the animals are happy, I recognize a cute creature doing its thing and enjoy it. I have no shame.

Ego

NT Experience

Per Gemini:

The ego is the conscious mind—the “self”—that manages decision-making by balancing primal desires (id) with moral constraints (superego). A healthy ego indicates balanced self-worth, while an overinflated ego relies on superiority and comparison. It deeply affects relationships by influencing whether one acts with empathy or defensiveness.

Typically NT people use the term “ego” to refer to the negative effects:

People who have “high ego” take credit for other people’s work, try to gain social advantage, and can be aggressive.

My Experience

I have been described as having “no ego”, though if you didn’t know me I might appear:

There is some truth to those – I prioritize Truth and Facts over feelings. I don’t have to be right, but I do not like it when somebody is wrong. I sound like I am very confident when I speak, but I am very careful to use softening words to indicate veracity (but this may come across as politeness). I probably am selfish in many ways – my lack of Social Salience means I don’t know what other people need or want unless they tell me. I am not cold and calculating, I just don’t have any affective mirroring.

This same lack of social salience is also a benefit. After people know me, I look a little different:

If you don’t know me, I Say The Wrong Thing and I probably signal very weird. People who do know me seem to like me – I get along with almost everybody. At least in tech jobs and with my friends (who tend to be from tech, though not universally), this works well. I am very useful, so I come across as an eccentric expert. Luckily tech is full of people who are a bit odd, so I think I seem pretty normal.

Embarassment

NT Experience

“I have made a social slip; please don’t look at me.” or “I have lost status; I am at risk of social exclusion.”

NT social structures rely heavily on “unwritten rules.” Breaking these, even accidentally, can cause an immediate spike in embarrassment because it signals a momentary loss of social competence.

The list of triggers seems to be longer than the rest of these notes. Here are a few high level ones:

NT people can also feel second-hand embarrassment when they watch someone else violate a social norm.

When embarrassed NT people can also experience a blush response: an involuntary physiological reaction characterized by the reddening of the face, ears, neck, and sometimes the upper chest. This is driven by the sympathetic nervous system, the same system responsible for the “fight or flight” response.

My Experience

I am more or less impervious to breaking unwritten rules and social norms: I don’t know what they are and can’t perceive them.

I can be annoyed at tripped in public or having food in my teeth, but it is a minor thing. I am the definition of inappropriate dress – it doesn’t bother me at all (though it drives my wife nuts).

Bodily noises, on the other hand, can trigger the blush response. A loud fart in an elevator full of people. I will certainly blush and say “excuse me”. This is not embarrassment in the NT sense: the blush is a biological threat response (BTR). I suddenly have 5 people looking at me and whiffing odors that I wish they would not smell. I am not in fear of my life, but at a low level my brain recognizes a threat signal. I am not reacting to the social wrongness, I am experiencing momentary stress. Once I am clear, the feeling will quickly subside – I tend not to have a lot of lingering thoughts.

Note: my wife says that I will say excuse me even when I am half asleep. This is not a social gesture, this is a hard coded script in my Manual Frame Construction to provide Zero Lag response when needed.

I can also trigger the same blush response if I inadvertently say something that sounds off color or racist. I realize this after the fact – perhaps my brain is reviewing the speech for clarity and it trips a heuristic rule. I will apologize and probably blush. If it came out not as I intended, then I will move on though my face may take time to recover.

Note: if I were to say something that I did not know was off color or racist, I would not blush or even notice. If somebody pointed this out to me, I would thank them and apologize. I now know something new. I might blush, but probably not. I wouldn’t feel bad about myself – I didn’t know and had no intent. I might Regret the that I said the wrong thing, but again this involves no bad feelings.

Lacking Shame or any ability to see the social norms I am unable to experience embarrassment in the NT sense.

Comparison

Trigger-wise, my experience is a subset of the NT experience: we both feel “embarrassed” when we fart in public or say something that we realize is offensive. NT people have a much wider array of triggers from various social signals that I can’t perceive.

I don’t feel anything like Shame, I feel System Friction – things are not as they should be. I can’t feel embarrassed in the NT sense.

Semantic Divergence: yes.

Empathy

“I feel with you.”

NT Experience

Empathy is not an emotion per se, rather it is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. There are a wide range of definitions but for the purpose of my notes:

Empathy helps people understand each other, builds trust, strengthens relationships and drives prosocial behavior. People often think about it in terms of helping each other with emotional issues.

My Experience

I have no functional empathy, though I can experience Sympathy if I understand what emotions or distress the person is feeling.

No Affective Empathy

I have no Social Salience so I have no emotional signal and affective empathy is impossible for me. A person in distress who is quiet is the same as a quiet person to me.

Cognitive Empathy of a Sort

If I have an explicit signal, “I am sad because X”, I can mentally model their state and may be able to understand. Some things that people might be upset about would not be upsetting to me (see no Shame). I might be able to feel Sympathy in that case – I can understand that they are upset without knowing why.

NT people would not consider this cognitive empathy as it is manually constructed and requires explicit signal – many times when people are upset they can’t explain themselves.

Narrative Affective Resonance

Note: I am not sure this is a legit term, though you can find some hits for it on google. I am going with the LLM definition of it as it made sense to me, describing my experience.

When I hear a moving story I can construct my own equivalent mental model and experience my own emotions as if I were in that state. If my feelings match theirs or are close enough, I may appear to have empathy, but again, these are my own feelings.

For example, in the movie Up, the initial sequence (no dialogue) tells a compelling story where the couple is happily married but when they try to have children they are unable to do so and eventually the wife dies. I can imagine myself in that situation and feel the permanent loss of his spouse and the dreams they had together all becoming worthless. Waterworks.

Another example is if somebody’s cat or dog dies I will feel very sad. I have had my own cats and currently have a dog. I can picture when my own dog is near death and dying. I may be at the vet office holding him as he breathes his last. Even typing this I am tearing up. This will be a significant permanent loss of a beloved pet/family member. I will be very sad and I may express this sadness to the other person. It is not empathy, but it is as close as I can get.

A third example is books: they provide a pure literal signal. Authors often write what people feel or the social signals they are picking up. I can feel the same sense of loss for characters and events in books as I do for real life. Some authors, notably Brandon Sanderson can give me a thrill when competent characters reveal their abilities or accomplish something notable.

Notably I can only use this where I can model and experience the situation or something close to it. This is easiest for sadness – permanent loss of something unique is my primary trigger.

This is not a social function, this is a logical simulation of values. I am not “feeling what they feel”. Technically this is autonoetic thought where I reenact the concept of loss within my own value system. It is a functional bridge but not empathy.

Comparison

I have no affective empathy at all and my “cognitive empathy” is not really that.

Semantic Divergence: yes, sort of – I am not sure I ever claimed to have empathy. I certainly didn’t know what it was.

Envy

NT Experience

“You have what I deserve; your gain is my loss.”

When NT people see other people having better “things”, they feel lower in the status hierarchy and want the other thing. The value of objects, positions, relationships, jobs, etc. are often about how others will feel when they see them.

My Experience

When I use the word “envy”, I have identified something that works well and is useful. I am lacking that – I have identified an inefficiency and I also want one. I don’t care about how others will perceive this, I want one like that for myself. The item can be something of use: an object or a job.

It turns out I value everything I have in a similar way: I want a nice car, in particular something that is very reliable, fuel efficient and is quiet to ride in. I want a nice computer because I use it for my work (and I like to play with tech gadgets). I want a nice house because it will be comfortable and pleasant to live in.

I don’t care what anybody else thinks about these things. I don’t show them off – I only have an urge to show somebody else something if I think they will also like it, like a pinball table.

I have use “jealous” as a synonym, even though that is a different concept, but I find it hard to distinguish.

Comparison

Both NT people and I have a desire for something that we don’t have, but that is where the similarity ends.

In NT society, envy typically has a very negative connotation. I don’t think my “envy” has any ill effects – desiring something that is good and useful seems positive, but it really isn’t the same emotion as envy.

Semantic Divergence: yes.

Fear

NT Experience

“I am in danger; I am unprepared; I must escape.”

Fear is a very low level emotion that triggers action when there is danger. For NT people it might be triggered for any or all of these reasons:

They handle these fears in a couple different ways:

My Experience

I have some overlap with these, but have none of the social fears, see below. I don’t fear “loss of autonomy”, I fear loss of functionality:

All of these things could have a negative effect on me – I consider their estimated value (likelihood times impact) in my level of worry. That said, I tend to avoid doing things that might put me in danger with no gain. Don’t take a vacation in an area dangerous to tourists, even if the chance is low.

I have all the same primal triggers and experience them the same way, I think.

I suspect that the non-primal fears are more of a label to me than an emotion of fear. It is more of a dislike than something I dwell on.

My Experience: Social Fears

Lacking Social Salience I have none of the social fears:

I don’t want to be socially excluded, but why would I be? It may be hard for an NT conceive of such a thing, but I don’t really care if I am excluded from a social group – it just isn’t something I can feel. I wouldn’t want to be fired from a job, but that is because I would lose functionality (my income) and have to find a new job, which can be hard work.

I feel stress when doing a public presentation, but this is related to the preparation and anticipation – once it is underway I am fine. I don’t fear the audience’s reaction, I worry that I might flub the delivery. I know logically that I can recover and most of the time people won’t notice anyway, but I still feel the biological stress leading up to an important event.

Irrational Anxiety: My Dog

I have anxiety over leaving my dog with the neighbors. They have a small dog like mine and they love to take care of my dog. I couldn’t ask for a better situation. I have a lot of anxiety leaving him with them if we go on vacation.

He is a toy poodle who is small and fragile and very needy. I didn’t feel this way with my cats, but this dog is something else, triggered by my Functional Cognitive Architecture and how I care for my dog.

Per the LLM:

It triggers some kind of safety protocol in me:

The dog is upset when we drop him off and happy to see us when we return. He is unharmed and in good shape. While we are traveling I sometimes think about him and hope he is doing well, but it is not something that I dwell on.

The LLM suggested this mitigation (which I find hilarious in phrasing):

Logic Override: Remind the system (that is me) that the “Neighbor System” has successfully processed the “Dog Node” in the past with a 0% failure rate. Use the historical data to suppress the real-time alarm.

Something I am working on. This does not match the NT trigger for fear at all, but at the physiological level I likely feel the same chemical signals as an NT person (cortisol, adrenaline) – this is probably the closest match to an NT emotion I have!

Comparison

I am not brave, but I don’t feel any of the social fears that NT people feel. Aside from primal fears (physical danger), I don’t even experience the emotion the same way. Per the LLM my “fear” emotion is more like Functional Hazard Analysis.

Semantic Divergence: yes. I think this one is not too harmful in terms of people being confused, but it isn’t really close at all.

Guilt

NT Experience

“I have hurt the group; I am at risk of exclusion; I feel the group’s pain.”

In NT people guilt is a reflection of how others view them: specifically that others feel they have harmed a relationship or violated a social norm. Guilt is the emotion that they feel and the mechanism that triggers their signaling and social repair.

My Experience

“I have violated a rule, broke something, or caused a failure. Logic dictates a taking steps to restore the original state, if possible.”

Although I might say “I feel guilty about X” where X is something that I did, I am not feeling the same emotion at all. In reality I feel Regret that X happened and that I caused it. I can apologize for it and attempt to make it right. If I performed X and knew it was wrong, I would “feel” bad about myself: I violated my own Ethics. Except that is not Shame, again, it is a form of regret that I committed this violation.

If I can rectify the problem, e.g. I broke something and replaced it with something as good as or better, my feeling goes away. The ledger is cleared.

Guilt is more a type of regret where I feel I have some culpability. It is a label on the regret rather than an emotion.

Comparison

In this case the trigger is something that both the NT person and I have done, but the type of action is likely different. I won’t know (or care) about social gaffes due to my lack of Social Salience – I will only recognize violations of my ethics (including damage to equipment). NT people typically feel guilty about how they made other people feel. If they break a tool they do not feel bad about the damage, they feel bad about how they made the owner of the tool feel and how the owner perceives them.

That overlap in trigger is pretty thin and the rest of the experience is totally different.

In both cases the “guilt” feeling does trigger reparative work, though even the nature of that differs. I risk confusing NT people by using the word “guilt” when I don’t mean what they mean.

Much like Shame, I can’t really feel guilt.

Semantic Divergence: yes.

Survivor Guilt

Survivor Guilt is an affective response where an individual feels responsible for a negative outcome they did not cause, simply because they did not share the fate of the victims.

In NT people there are two basic mechanisms at play:

Although I haven’t been in a situation where I think survivor guilt would apply, I don’t think I can experience it – neither of those triggers will affect me. Self is an independent system. My own survival (lack of negative outcome) is a positive value and the death of others is a negative value. These are logically independent, assuming I was not at fault for the incident.

Hate

NT Experience

“You are a threat to my world; you should not exist.”

In NT people hate is an emotional/moral feeling. It i the designation of an individual or a group as malignant. Hate functions as a social signaling and conformity tool. For in-group NT people, they both signal allegiance and ensure conformity of hate toward an entity that threatens the group’s values or status. Individuals may hate on their own if they are personally threatened.

Typically hate is restricted to things with will. In some cases the word may be applied to anthropomorphized objects temporarily. Hate is typically applied to other people where there is some relationship, perhaps to their in-group. Hate is relational and requires a social audience.

The mechanism is a variant on Disgust – the same biological feeling that people have toward feces is directed at other people. They think and feel that the target is evil.

Typically hate is a longer term feeling than Anger and its function and intent are different.

My Experience

For me “hate” is a term I use to indicate high intensity dislike. It might be triggered by a ethical judgment (the target is lying or harming people) or I might use it for very strong opinions, e.g. I hate fish.

In the case of ethical violations, my “hate” is more of a label: “this person does bad things”. I don’t feel a strong emotion, though if I focus my thoughts on their actions I may feel Anger. This is a much colder emotion than the NT emotion of the same name. It is putting an “evil” name tag on something, not aligning forceful thoughts against them.

Unlike NT people I can “hate” objects. I don’t ascribe evil intent to them, I just don’t like them. They might be inelegant, they might taste bad, they might be fundamentally flawed. Again, it is just a label of dislike.

I can “hate” people that I have never met, will never meet, am not affected by, etc. For example, if I heard about a mass murderer in another country I would “hate” them (and perhaps an NT person might not – they won’t like them, but hate is a little more personal). I don’t hate people who don’t like me, I don’t really care. If somebody tries to harm me and they succeed I might hate them: they did me harm. If they accidentally did me harm (without malice or negligence), I might be angry at the situation, but I would not hate them.

My hate toward people is two-fold:

Vengeance or spite is not really my thing. I think.

In some cases the feeling might be Disgust: I am not allergic to fish but I would feel ill if I ate some (Caesar dressing aside). This is a distinct feeling from my typical use of the word and is more a description of the sensory effect of something that triggers the gag reflex. I hate fish and mushrooms. There are other foods I might describe as “hate” but they are simple dislike.

Comparison

Other than both NT and my version of hate being a longer term feeling, there is not much overlap. NT people hate the essence of another person while I hate an idea, the output or an object (typically food, but anything I might have a strong opinion about).

Note: that the NT use of the word hate is also a bit heteronymous like my own. NT people can “hate” a certain type of food – it overlaps with the Disgust feeling. They can also “hate” inanimate objects such as computers: they can feel targeted by them. They use the word hate, but it sounds a bit more like Anger to me.

This is a term where being a heteronym causes problems, though I didn’t realize it until recently. My “hate” is quite a different emotion and using this word can be misleading. Perhaps it works out as NT people can be a bit sloppy with its use too.

Semantic Divergence: yes.

Loneliness

NT Experience

“I am disconnected; I am hungry for belonging.”

For NT people the loneliness emotion is not typically about being physically along, rather it is triggered by the gap between their desired social connection and their actual social connection. It is possible to feel lonely in the middle of a party if they are not connecting with the people around them.

This feeling works like hunger and is known as social homeostasis: when the social connection feels low the brain triggers a distressing emotional response (aka loneliness) to signal the need to seek out others.

Note that NT people can look for solitude, which is a voluntary state of being alone. They might use this to feel peace or be free of distractions. The key is that this is intentional.

NT Experience: Introversion^Introvert

Introversion and extroversion is a spectrum about how much connection one needs. An introvert can still feel lonely but requires much less connection to feel satisfied.

Introverts may find it harder to connect with people – they may find small talk or large group dynamics (parties) draining. This can increase their sense of loneliness as they may have the urge to socialize but a resistance at the same time. Introverts additionally feel socially burned out and shun social connection. If they overdo this recovery they may start to feel isolated.

Autistic Experience

Note: I am summarizing what I have read and what an LLM explained to me and don’t mean this as a representation of any one person. It may even be wrong in general, but it is useful for me to know as a contrastive difference.

Autistic people have the same loneliness feeling but with yet another layer of complexity from the Autism Experience – social interaction can be mentally exhausting. This isn’t introversion, this is high effort to “fit in” and mentally model the people they are interacting with. They can be aware of their “otherness” and not feel a connection, even when talking to other people. When NT and autistic people socialize they may suffer the double empathy problem – specifically the autistic people suffer.

Autistic people thrive when talking about their interests, which can often be deep. I imagine somebody who is in to pinball going to a pinball convention would be in heaven, more so than NT people who might be there for the social vibes. They could talk to other people (NT and autistic) about their love of pinball, favorite games, play skills, etc.

My Experience

I have a feeling that I call “loneliness” – from the output side it looks like an impulse to talk to other people. Internally I think this may be closer to boredom. I don’t crave social connection, I am looking for some low intensity chaos.

My lack of Social Salience means I don’t experience the social pings and I don’t feel the social connection that NT people feel. I am not antisocial, I think I am more indifferent.

I like having friends: these are people where we have some shared context and I don’t require a full Manual Frame Construction to talk to. I have some initialization friction. It can be hard for me to start a conversation without a hook. The hook might be somebody else calling a meeting. It might be a set time when we all go to lunch. It might be some information that I think the other person will be interested in.

One that I didn’t expect to enjoy: my neighbors often hang out in and around the garage of the person across the street to drink beer and chat (think the alleyway in King of the Hill) – I can walk up and listen or participate in the conversation as I please. When I am “full”, I state my reason for leaving (finishing walking the dog, going for tea, etc.) and go. The full feeling comes when I start feeling bored with the conversation – it might be ten minutes or even less if they are talking about sports. More if they are talking about work (even though they are not programmers, there are still interesting things going on). I had self identified as an introvert – the appearance is similar, but the mechanism is not the same. I am not an introvert.

But this isn’t loneliness in the NT sense. I am fine playing pinball, working, or reading for a week straight without seeing anyone. Working from home during COVID was strange but not stressful. We still saw each other on video chat. I missed going out to eat more than anything.

I seek out other people when I am bored with what I am doing and want some different input. “Small talk” with neighbors is fine in small doses. Talking with people at work is usually a little more rewarding because we are aligned in areas of interest and skill.

Much like autistic people I enjoy talking to people about things I enjoy. Want to talk about programming? Pinball? Video games? Sci-fi and fantasy books? Awesome! Want to talk about opera and abstract art? I brought a book. I don’t think this is the same experience – I don’t have stress talking to people about other things, but I will get bored with it and wander away (or read my book). I think talking about things that interest me is some kind of “flow state” where my mind is focused on things I enjoy and running at peak efficiency.

I can satisfy my need for “conversation” in a number of ways that probably wouldn’t be satisfying to NT people:

My wife described my interactions with others (including immediate family) as: “you treat everybody like a neighbor.” What I consider a “close” relationship is probably greater shared context.

TLDR: I seek interaction when I am bored with what I am doing and need some noise injected for variety. I don’t need a lot. I have much more enjoyment talking about topics of interest. There is no feeling of connection that I am aware of, but I do value these interactions.

My Experience: Task Completion

I once completed a huge debugging task that took six months or a year (long elapsed time, not continuous work). When I found it I felt a huge dopamine hit – I was shaking. Even though it was late at night I was so excited I texted my boss “I FOUND IT”. He knew what I was talking about. This wasn’t bragging or looking for praise, this was delivery.

When I complete a task like this I have an urge to tell somebody, ideally somebody who might understand it. If I made a program I want to demonstrate it. I am not seeking approval, I am excited (dopamine I presume). In person is fine, via video chat is fine, even a Slack conversation with screenshots works. I think it is the expression of excitement that I am seeking.

This is also not loneliness, but there is some overlap in the desire to “talk”.

My Experience: Travel^Travel

Another case where that I label loneliness is around travel or just going out to events – doing these alone is boring. If I were alone I would stay at home and do something I like. When I traveled on business I sat in my hotel room and read rather than going out to see the city – solo travel is just not appealing.

I could visit a pinball museum by myself. I can eat out by myself (bring a book). These provide intrinsic value that I enjoy. I think travel to see the sights is different and I require a companion to provide interest as a substitute for my lack of interest.

This isn’t NT loneliness either, but is a type of activity where I want to do it with other people.

Comparison

Although I have a feeling that I label “loneliness”, it is nothing like NT loneliness. It is not missing social connection, love, or belonging, it is missing complexity. I am bored. I can use complex activity (pinball, good books, programming) to fill that need most of the time. Sometimes I desire a little variety and humans provide that.

Semantic Divergence: yes, large.

Love

There are many types of love – I am talking about romantic love here. The love you have for your spouse.

NT Experience

“Your well-being is as important as my own.”

For NT people, love is a complex and multilayered emotion. It typically involves:

These are communicated through vibes and social signals. The people in love feel mentally connected – on the same wavelength. This results in a shift in salience (importance) where the partner becomes the most vivid person in their perception. NT people expect their partner to intuit their needs rather than give explicit requests. The couple forms a singular “we” identity. Love provides a buffer against the world – there is safety with your partner even if the world is cruel.

Love is probably the most complex emotion a human can feel and my description (of something I can’t experience directly) likely sounds clinical.

My Experience

I feel something I call love, but lacking Social Salience it is necessarily different from NT love. I think I feel attachment and attraction, but fall short on care.

I have been married for over 20 years and I love my wife, but I cannot express it in the same way NT people do. I have no vibes and no communication outside of explicit verbal speech. I don’t feel “mentally connected” but I do have great familiarity with her thought process: I can predict what she will say even if I don’t know what she thinks. I am not sure I have a “we” identity – I don’t know what this looks like. Certainly we are a couple and we work together to manage our lives. We don’t have to think the same things but we have to act in alignment. I don’t feel “social danger”, so I don’t think I get a feeling of safety. I think I do provide stability for my wife. That doesn’t sound romantic!

I guess I would have to define love through the things that matter to me:

As I discovered my neurodivergence I learned how I was hurting my wife by not providing the emotional support she expected and needed. It helps my wife understand that I really don’t mean to hurt her, I have real limitations. Understanding the mechanism gives me some hope of Mitigation, but not solving the problem.

Comparison

I don’t know what NT people would call my emotion, but I think they would not label it love. It is what I have and it will have to do.

Semantic Divergence: yes.

Mid-happy Default

I find myself being mid-happy most of the time. As long as I am not hangry I would probably describe myself as “Happy” or “Satisfied”. Not higher or lower energy. Curiously I don’t really identify with “Hopeful” as being in between those two – that suggests something is wrong.

emotion chart

Why?

Speculation, but maybe:

Generally my needs are met and things are fine. Mid-happy default!

Pride

NT Experience

“I am better than others; others see me as valuable.”

NT people experience pride as roughly the emotional opposite of Shame and it may be viewed as both a virtue and a vice (in fact one of the seven deadly sins). Pride is a social signaling mechanism which maintains social hierarchy.

There are two types of pride:

Authentic Pride: Linked to Prestige. It signals to the group that an individual has high-value skills and should be granted status. It requires the perception of others’ respect via Social Salience.

Hubristic Pride: Linked to Dominance. It signals a claim to status without necessarily having the underlying competence. It is a competitive strategy.

Pride provides a Dopamine hit.

This blog entry is a nice write up on the concept.

My Experience

“The output meets or exceeds the specification.”

I value competence and utility. I want my work to be valued – this is what motivates me. There are two aspects:

I don’t value the social part of the acknowledgment – private is fine, or none. Seeing my work being used is value enough.

Lacking Social Salience I don’t feel any of the social aspects of pride. There may be a dopamine hit from closure, especially from a difficult problem. Mostly there is only a label on the event of “job well done” or “this helped somebody”. I do not feel better than others, I only feel that I have done what I set out to do.

Comparison

This is another instances of a heteronym – I use the same word for a completely different concept. They look the same to me (without seeing the social signals) but I am incapable of feeling the NT version of pride.

In both cases there is a desire to “do a good job”, which is helpful, but the reward mechanism is very different.

I need to be careful of my use of the word “pride” – it triggers many people to think of the seven deadly sins and has a negative connotation, where my internal meaning is entirely positive. It is often used by religion to indicate that obedience and conformance are important and that pride should be avoided. Given the comparative and social aspects of the NT emotion, I think that is probably for the best.

Semantic Divergence: yes.

Regret

NT Experience

“I knew better; I wish I could choose differently.”

In NT people regret is a judgment of actions or outcomes, a feeling of “I did a bad thing”:

Regret triggers an affective state of disappointment or sorrow localized to the event.

My Experience: Functional Regret

I feel shame for roughly the same circumstances – I recognize an inefficient outcome. It might be social Friction, it might be something I said (probably also friction), it might be something I did.

If I had to do it over I might make another choice. I have no affective state (feeling) about it – social friction causes no distress, just regret at lack of efficiency.

I think regret stands in for a number of emotions that I can’t feel:

If I had a high magnitude failure, something that violated my Ethics, like being negligent and causing somebody physical harm I would feel Integrity Distress. I am not feeling the victim’s pain, I am feeling an internal pain due to the failure of my own standards.

Semantic Divergence: yes, but less than most.

Sadness

NT Experience

“I have lost something precious; I need time to heal.”

For NT people there are two types of sadness:

Grief is experienced as a physical presence – it isn’t just a thought, it is a hollow feeling or a fog that slows them down. For NT people, a significant portion of their identity is experienced through these social connections. When a person is gone, part of their mirroring identity is lost with it. This is a very intense emotion and goes through some phases of expression. It may never go away entirely, but eventually it will lose some of its impact.

Grief can also be for an abstract future. If they lose a job they can grieve the loss of the identity they had in that space. The same can happen for perceived loss or loss of potential.

Sentimentality is a mixture of happiness and sadness. The happiness comes from the memories of emotions around the object, e.g. a ticket stub to a concert that they went to with their grandfather when they were little. The sadness comes from realizing the moment is gone and it may bring up past grief. This is also part of identity. This is not all bad feelings – it allows them to relive the moment and re-feel the emotions.

My Experience

I feel grief for loss of people, pets, and objects. The magnitude of my sadness is based on:

I will be extremely sad when my dog, wife, or children die (assuming I am alive at the time). They will be permanently and irreversibly removed from this world (physically at least). I will not be able to see them again.

I don’t feel the NT hollowness or change in identity. I feel the physiological aspect of it – crying. I feel a high magnitude deletion event – a feeling of permanent loss. I suspect I won’t go through the stages of grieving, at least not like an NT person would, but I don’t know.

I feel a lesser grief for people I don’t know, and more in the abstract. When young people are killed in war, I imagine the waste: there were countless hours of love, teaching, schooling, and effort in that person and it was all lost in an instant.

The narrative affective resonance lets me model somebody else’s loss as my own. I cry for sad movies or when somebody else talks about the loss of their pet. I am not mirroring their emotion as an NT person would, I am modeling it and feeling my own loss.

I feel a lower magnitude grief when somebody loses a treasured stuffed animal from their childhood. I don’t have any particular feeling for stuffed animals, but I can model the feeling of love for the item – I had treasured things that I had when I was young (and still have some of them). The item could be replaced with an equivalent, but it wouldn’t be the same. The loss itself makes me feel sad.

If unique historical artifacts or art was lost I would feel a larger sadness. These can’t be replaced, they can only be remembered. I don’t think this could be as great a sadness as the loss of a person or pet, but it is a feeling perhaps an NT person might not feel. My lack of Social Salience causes me to value both in somewhat the same way.

As far as sentimentality goes, I am not sure I can feel it at all. I might value an object from my past, but I am remembering its value then and considering it now. It doesn’t trigger memories – I can access those with or without the object. My memories are about events and places, not emotions.

Comparison

I find it hard to even describe my emotion of sadness. It is strongly associated with the physiological act of crying and feeling of loss. Beyond that I can’t say. It doesn’t have the same permanence as the NT sadness. The trigger has high overlap with the NT experience but the emotion itself is completely different.

Semantic Divergence: yes, large. Unlike some of the other emotions this one is mostly inward focused – I don’t think the semantic divergence is as harmful here. That said, I might feel sad one day and fine a few days later and NT people might find that unusual. I have read that everybody processes grief differently, so perhaps that is my explanation.

Shame

Shame

“I am fundamentally flawed; I must hide myself.”

In NT people shame is a judgment of themselves, a feeling of “I am bad”:

This is a painful feeling of humiliation. You feel bad about yourself. In NT people it provides a societal feeling or right and wrong and is the negative feedback used to steer people away from the wrong.

Note: shame is an evaluation of self. Regret is an evaluation of actions or the output of actions.

I Feel No Shame

I have no Social Salience so I:

If somebody were to tell me Hard Truths, like “you are cold-hearted and have no empathy” it doesn’t make me feel bad. The statement is either:

I don’t feel any loss of social standing or feel different about myself. If the revealed information is true, it was true before I knew it.

If I were found to have made a mistake, I would feel functional Regret at the fact that it happened. I might even adjust my mental model to prioritize diligence, assuming that the mistake was not anticipated as a potential risk.

If I found that I had said something false (against my Ethics) I would again regret having said such a thing (perhaps it was a mistake?). I would correct the error and move on.

I can be held accountable for my actions without feeling bad about them or myself.

I use my Axiomatic Deontology and Ethics to guide my behavior rather than shame.

Semantic Divergence: yes, extreme.

Sympathy

“I feel for you.”

NT Experience

Sympathy is perception or understanding of distress in another being. As opposed to Empathy (feeling with the person), sympathy is feeling for the person.

Sympathy is from your own perspective: you can see that somebody is suffering and intellectually recognize pain – you feel pity. When somebody feels sympathy they may offer to help, give advice or “look on the bright side”.

In NT people sympathy might be used for somebody that you are not close to, while empathy is preferred for close relationships and deeper problems. Empathy is about the connection.

My Experience

If I can understand the emotions that people are feeling I can feel sympathy but not affective Empathy.

Since I don’t receive any social signals I may not understand they have an emotional state. Crying is a high magnitude statement that I can pick up – I can understand that they are sad for some reason. If they state “I am sad because my dog died” I will understand more.

I don’t understand what or how they feel, but I can sometimes experience a parallel feeling using Narrative Affective Resonance.

Typically if somebody is very emotional, I don’t know what to do. I have a bias toward noninterference (assuming doing nothing is less harmful, though in practice I suspect that this is not what NT people expect). If they are feeling distress where a solution is possible, problem solving would be my native state.

Comparison

The trigger threshold is different. NT people can detect very subtle vibes and understand hurt and offer sympathy. I understand crying (roughly as a person stating they are sad) or explicit words. I don’t know why unless I am told.

There is also a difference in the purpose. In NT people it is to validate each other’s emotional state and maintain relationships. I offer problem solving or avoidance. I do wish to help, but it isn’t always possible. Sympathy is more a label of distress or sadness than any understanding of emotions.

Semantic Divergence: yes.

Functional Cognitive Architecture

Just like most everything else I describe on this site, it never occurred to me that I might think different than most other people. In terms of computers I have a completely different architecture and have to run a different operating system on it. I don’t have some of the hardware (or it is unusable) like other people have, but I have many of the same basic needs for dealing with the world.

We can imagine the hardware and software in a sort of stack where each layer depends on the previous layer. Signals come in (vision, hearing) and are decoded and processed. Your conscious thinking sits on top of this: you make decisions and take actions. There might be some optional systems that could be employed if needed, e.g. you can concentrate on something.

For contrast, let’s look at what NT and autistic architectures might look like first.

NT Cognitive Architecture

Describing neurotypical cognitive architecture in similar terms might look like this:

  1. Hardware: Standard Neurotypical Sensory Array.
  2. Social Salience (Limbic Hardware): The “Antenna” is always on and prioritized.
  3. ToM (Automated Simulation): The brain “mirrors” others’ states automatically.
  4. Logic (Optional Overlay): Used only when “Intuition” fails. (High effort for NT people).
  5. Runtime: Associative Heuristics. (Consciousness lives in “Vibes” and “Feelings”).

Note that the first 3 layers are all “implemented in hardware” and are thus very low effort and indeed below the level of conscious thought.

Autism Cognitive Architecture

Autistic cognitive architecture might look something like this:

  1. Hardware: Standard Neurotypical Sensory Array.
  2. Social Salience (Limbic Hardware): The “Antenna” is always on and prioritized, but may be noisy and often highly sensitive
  3. ToM (Manual Simulation): The social signal is received but has to be decoded and manually processed, e.g. by Theory-Theory. This is mentally costly and causes social lag. Theory-theory is a type of Propositional Logic.
  4. Manual Frame Construction: Autistic people use social scripting as ways to Mask and avoid social issues.
  5. Runtime: Associative Heuristics. (Consciousness lives in “Vibes” and “Feelings”).

Here only the first 2 layers are hardware and the Social Salience layer is feeding noisy data to the rest of the system. Layer 3 (ToM) is thus very expensive to run.

Note: likely autistic people have the same hardware, but the noisy sensor prevents the automated simulation from engaging. See this book that suggests that this is the case.

My Hardware and Software

At the lowest level I have the 5 normal senses, but they are hooked up to my conscious thoughts. My lack of Social Salience means that the low level connection (layers 1 and 2 in the above architectures) are missing. My imagination, which might provide some workarounds, is Hypophantasia, which turns into an amplifying factor. My only inputs are explicit facts – things that people tell me. I can observe physical facts (the car is red) and can draw logical conclusions (X said they like cats, Y is a cat, X probably likes Y).

Note: this is a logical model. I don’t literally have these parts. It may not work exactly like this, it is a model for the purposes of understanding and predicting.

I can’t read my own source code, but since this is mostly manual / conscious thought, I can observe the process. See Typical Example for something recorded shortly after experiencing (high fidelity, I think).

Propositional Logic (ISA)

The lowest layer of my model is propositional logic. At the lowest layer this is the ISA (instruction set architecture) – these are the low level instructions I can execute. Basically if/then/else with some comparisons possible :

IF Input(Factual Error) == True THEN Action(Correction)
IF Utility(action) < Cost(action) THEN SKIP

There is a set of “software” built using these instructions that I use to actually make decisions and perform actions – per asking an LLM it might be a few hundred “lines of code”.

Component Estimated Quantity Mechanical Function
Axiomatic Kernel 5–8 Constants Hard-coded ethical/logical values (e.g., Truth > Harmony).
Active Scripts 15–20 Libraries Loaded frameworks for specific environments (Work, Child, Stranger).
Peephole Optimizers 40–60 Macros “Fast-fail” rules for common interactions (The “Nice” Protocol, The “Bathroom” Exit).
Manual Logic Gates 200–400 Gates Discrete IF/THEN decisions executed during an interaction.

I can translate real world data into straightforward logic (but like real software it can be both and imperfect and leaky abstraction).

Axiomatic Deontology / Ethics

These are the rules I follow – what is right and wrong. To some extent, what are my low level goals in life. These are fixed rules, evaluated in priority order. A higher priority rule may override a lower priority rule, but violation of the rules is not possible. They are rigid.

Well, of course anything is possible. One of my rules is about Truth and Facts and it is physically possible for me to lie, I just won’t do it. Could something force my hand? Maybe, maybe not. It would be a BIG DEAL and QUITE TRAUMATIC for me to be forced into something like that. In realistic situations, no, these are fixed rules.

Manual Frame Construction

From software: requirements gathering.

Because this stage can stall as we wait for more data (analysis paralysis), I use three heuristics to enable forward progress:

For the latter two heuristics I can rely on a feedback loop in the functional logic modeling (plan) to adjust for new information that comes in.

Functional Logic Modeling

I don’t have Social Salience, so I treat other humans as Black Boxes with some attached facts. Given a goal I can construct a logical model of the situation where I can compute the inputs that I think will give the desired output(s).

There is one additional heuristic:

And a disadvantage:

The model produces a plan for how to achieve my goals – the instructions I need to execute to achieve the desired result. Those are the instructions I need to evaluate in the next step – some small subset of my available instructions.

Propositional Logic (Runtime)

The Functional Logic Modeling identified the appropriate “instructions” to evaluate from my Propositional Logic and this layer actually executes them.

My Cognitive Architecture

If we put those pieces together

  1. Sensing Hardware (turned off): Pure A-salience / no Social Salience / Hypophantasia
  2. Low Level CPU / ISA (hardware): Propositional Logic
  3. Ethics, rules, policy (software): Axiomatic Deontology / Ethics
  4. Initialization (software): Manual Frame Construction
  5. Database & Model (software): Functional Logic Modeling
  6. Execution (software): Propositional Logic – this is where I live

When I enter a room (let’s say at a conference) something like this happens:

These layers and probably ethics are all managed manually by me executing my Inner Speech. There are a number of shortcuts I employ in the Functional Logic Modeling – this isn’t as expensive as it sounds. My entire “stack” is software.

Perhaps surprisingly this gives me a Zero Lag system that worked well enough that I didn’t even know it was a thing. I don’t try to emulate NT Theory of Mind, I didn’t know that was a thing until recently either. This is quite a different mechanism than autism, though there is some overlap in social communication.

What does this feel like? Hypophantasia describes part of it, including my memory and what the experience is like. I have an example captured soon after I experienced it and with this framework in mind.

Examples

Propositional Logic

Propositional logic is a type of logic that looks like mathematical expressions. If you are familiar with programming, it is boolean logic and boolean algebra.

Think something like:

raining –> cloudy (read: raining implies cloudy)

This would be expressed as if/then:

IF raining THEN cloudy

You can combine logical expressions with AND, OR, NOT, etc.:

IF raining AND lightning THEN thunder

My Experience

See Functional Cognitive Architecture – I think in terms of logical statements. I only have Truth and Facts as input. People speak and I observe.

Per discussion with an LLM I likely have a few hundred instructions:

Component Estimated Quantity Mechanical Function
Axiomatic Kernel 5–8 Constants Hard-coded ethical/logical values (e.g., Truth > Harmony).
Active Scripts 15–20 Libraries Loaded frameworks for specific environments (Work, Child, Stranger).
Peephole Optimizers 40–60 Macros “Fast-fail” rules for common interactions (The “Nice” Protocol, The “Bathroom” Exit).
Manual Logic Gates 200–400 Gates Discrete IF/THEN decisions executed during an interaction.

In my Functional Logic Modeling I can select which instructions are needed, giving me Zero Lag evaluation.

NT Experience

NT people also use propositional logic in some situations: programming computers, doing math and a lot of work in STEM fields requires logical thinking. They have to translate between their native thought patterns which are associative, narrative and heuristic frameworks.

When a neurotypical (NT) programmer sits down to code, they aren’t just “typing thoughts”—they are performing an act of mental compilation. They have to take a high-level, “fuzzy” goal and break it down into the rigid, propositional constraints of a machine.

Autism Experience

The Theory-Theory model of how autistic people process TOM signals is thought to look like Propositional Logic. This is the scientific approach: you develop a set of rules and hypotheses (a “theory”) about how people behave based on observation.

If this is true, autistic people use propositional logic to decode noisy social salience signals into the Theory of Mind model – they evaluate rules in sequence to figure out what is happening. This is expensive – there are a lot of rules to evaluate and this causes the stress in Autism Experience.

How many rules and what do they look like? Well, an LLM suggests an order of magnitude for a typical autistic person:

The Core Heuristics (100–500 Rules)

At the foundational level, one needs rules for basic physical safety, greetings, and primary needs. These are the “if-then” statements that govern surface-level interactions:

Contextual & Environmental Modifiers (1,000–5,000 Rules)

Social rules change based on the setting (work vs. home), the relationship hierarchy (boss vs. spouse), and the culture. This is where the “rule explosion” begins. A logic-based system must account for:

The “Recursive” Explosion (10,000+ Rules)

True Theory of Mind requires nested mentalizing (knowing that you know that they know). In propositional logic, every level of nesting adds an exponential layer of complexity:

Even if the recursive rules were deemed unlikely this is still thousands of rules that need to be evaluated real-time during a conversation – remember they are trying to simulate the Theory of Mind that NT get for free.

Ethical Systems

Ethics tell a person what should be done. What is right and what is wrong. Surprisingly (to me anyway) there are many different ways to approach this. I never considered that there could be other ways and my Axiomatic Deontology gives “universal” right and wrong – it doesn’t really allow for a lot of flexibility.

Both autistic people and I operate with ethical systems that look very similar from the outside. I use Axiomatic Deontology while many autistic people will employ Affective Deontology.

Functionally these look very similar to an NT observer:

The mechanism for each is different. I look for contradiction or rule violation while autistic people are likely looking for unfairness or harm. I don’t have the Social Salience to judge harm in the same way, so I fall back to rules.

NT people probably fall under Social Utilitarianism.

This is not an exhaustive list, just covering the ones that I felt were most important for me to understand.

Axiomatic Deontology

This is the ethical style that I use. I apply the rules of truth and ethics consistently, see Ethics for my specific rules.

Axiomatic refers to a set of rules (axioms). In Deontology, the logic/action itself is either consistent or inconsistent with a universal rule. The outcome is secondary to the integrity of the rule.

Who else might use a system like this?

I think the last one is humorous – LLMs operate on the same explicit signals that I do and thus (in the sense that they have ethics) are constrained to the same system.

Affective Deontology

This is the ethical system that most autistic people use. In affective deontology the rules stem from justice, moral values and deep empathy (affectivity). As in any deontological system the actions are either consistent with the rules or they are in violation. Rules are moral imperatives, not just constraints. They appear rigid to outside observers.

Consequentialism

The ends justify the means. The moral value of an act is determined solely by its outcome. If the final state (the “End”) has higher utility than the cost of the actions (the “Means”), the action is logically “Right.”

People who might follow these ethics:

Rational Egoism

“How can I use this situation to my advantage?”

An action is rational if it maximizes the agent’s own self-interest.

See Patric Gagne - Sociopath and James Fallon - Psychopath – they both act on social signals if it meets their needs.

Note: To an outside observer (NT), my Signal-Blindness might look like Rational Egoism.

Pragmatism

“What is the most efficient way to handle this situation?”

The “Truth” or “Rightness” of a belief is evaluated by the success of its practical application (Teleological). The rule is a heuristic (a helpful guide) that can be discarded if a more efficient path to the target state is identified.

Social Utilitarianism

“The greatest good for the greatest number.” – Jeremy Bentham

This is a typical ethical system for NT people. Truth is variable based on emotional state or social hierarchy. This system does not seek “Truth”; it seeks the state of Lowest Social Friction. If a lie maintains harmony, it is “better” (more stable) than a truth that causes a fracture.

Actions are judged as good or bad based on how they make people feel. Rules are dynamic and subject to social salience, emotional tone and group cohesion. Obviously this requires a working social salience (typically automatic Theory of Mind) to evaluate.

The system doesn’t require logic as a constraint. In fact “A” and “Not A” can both be true simultaneously if they serve the goal of Social Cohesion.

Divine Command Theory

Morality is determined solely by the commands of a deity (God).

The US legal system is Legal Positivism (Deontological) + Legal Pragmatism (Teleological). The system allows judges to deviate from the letter of the law to achieve “fairness” or “justice” in specific contexts.

Ethics

Ethics tell a person what should be done. Worldview is how you perceive the world – what is. Ethics is then the functional output of rules applied to that.

I see this as how I understand the world and what is right and wrong.

I use Axiomatic Deontology, a system where behavior is governed by a fixed set of universal rules (axioms) that apply in all scenarios, regardless of social hierarchy, emotional impact, or outcome.

So what are my rules? In priority order, something like this:

Rule 1: Do Not Harm (Life/Environment)

Rule 2: Ownership

Rule 3: Truth

Rule 4: Universal Symmetry (Consistency/Fairness)

Guideline A: Entropy Reduction (Politeness Filter, best effort, known faulty)

Consider Capacity, Intent, Agency, and the priority of these rules. The rules apply to everyone. I can’t determine intent intuitively so I use a logical model to determine it. If the action is harmful but the intent is survival, it may be permitted. It is still wrong in the ethical sense, but understandable (it does not change the fact but might mitigate the correction). If the intent is self gain then no leeway is given.

I think how infractions are dealt with needs to consider the situation: prevention and correction is the most important. I am not sure how I would feel if I were the victim of a crime: would I want punishment for the perpetrator? Restitution makes sense, but what if it is a crime that cannot be repaid?

No Authority Bias

When I say my ethics apply to everyone, I mean everyone. Me, my friends, my family, the people in my city, the local leaders, the leaders of companies, the leaders of nations and religions, and even God Himself. In fact, the higher importance the position, the more responsibility these people have to do the right thing – Noblesse Oblige. The leaders of nations and religions have the greatest ability to harm the people the represent and command and thus should be held to the highest standards. Incompetence is no excuse – you should not hold such a position if you are unable to carry out your duty.

Of course my ethics seem to have little value for people in authority.

Curiously (to me), most NT people grant exceptions and loosen rules for people of higher social importance.

Manual Frame Construction

From software: requirements gathering.

Understanding the situation and determining:

Stalls

There is a potential for stalls here:

Satisficing

Of course the biggest stall is analysis paralysis. How do you know when you are done? There is always more data to gather or opinions to consider.

I use three heuristics to break the stall:

For the latter two heuristics I can rely on a feedback loop in the functional logic modeling (plan) to adjust for new information that comes in.

Next Step: Functional Logic Modeling

Once I decide what I want and what are the facts in play I proceed to Functional Logic Modeling – time for a plan!

Functional Logic Modeling

Time for a plan.

I don’t have Social Salience, so I treat other humans as Black Boxes with some attached facts. I may know their stated preferences, stated ideas, etc. Given a goal I can construct a logical model of the situation where I can compute the inputs that I think will give the desired output(s).

This involves:

Obviously this is expensive, perhaps more so than Theory-Theory. Luckily I have developed some optimizations:

Feedback Loop

There is one additional heuristic:

See Typical Example for a replan – it can be done during a conversation if simple enough.

Limitations

And some disadvantages:

Next Step: Propositional Logic (Runtime)

The model produces a plan for how to achieve my goals – the instructions I need to execute to achieve the desired result via Propositional Logic. Those are the instructions I need to evaluate in the next step – some small subset of my available instructions.

Truth

Given my Axiomatic Deontology and Ethics I value truth highly. My lack of Social Salience means I have no Shame and my identity is not tied to facts about me. I am willing to accept non-flattering true statements without any stress. I will reject untrue statements about me (good or bad).

I can be blunt: I will say things that I believe are true without regard for the receiver’s feelings – without social saliency I don’t know what their feelings are. To me a lie is data corruption. I will not willingly say it.

Lies of Omission

I don’t feel a need to tell every fact to everyone. If I think not knowing a fact would cause harm to somebody I will tell them.

I have some heuristics that I manually apply to avoid some social friction, e.g. don’t tell somebody they are fat. These do not have anywhere close to full coverage and their manual application means I do slip up (and not know it).

I would rather not say something that say something false.

White Lies

NT people tell white lies for social lubrication – it isn’t even perceived as a lie.

I do not use white lies. I might not say anything at all, but if I do say it, it will be true or at the very least not false. Sometimes in social situations I can say “I am going to finish my walk now” or “I am going in to have tea” when the truth is “I want to leave now”. In those cases I will finish my walk or have tea, but it is a bit of misdirection for social friction reasons.

Secrets

In my ethics Rule 2: Ownership is higher priority than Rule 3: Truth. If I do not own the data I will not reveal it.

In fact, I may lie to conceal it and I don’t feel this is wrong. For example, if there is a fact X about my work and somebody asks me if X is true I could say:

If I actually do know about X then the first statement confirms that X is a thing and I have revealed part of the secret. I would prefer to use the second statement, which is false, to not leak information.

If the data was something I owned, say my SSN, and somebody who doesn’t need it asked me for it I would say “I won’t tell you that”. This is perhaps more the realm of Privacy than Secrecy, but I don’t need to conceal the fact that I know what my SSN is.

Facts

“Facts” are any piece of data. They are usually associated with something: a thing, a system, or a person. In the real world facts tend to be a bit fuzzy – they might be true, they might be false, and you might not know. This is a bit about Memory and mostly about how I think I organize information in my brain. This is probably different than how NT people organize their brain because we have different ways of using the information.

Some researchers suggest that people with literal viewpoints would be unable to process false facts. That is untrue, or at least I am able to process them.

Facts that I consume are graded as to their veracity, perhaps with:

Even true is really “believed to be true”. When I consume facts I associate them with entities and whatever metadata I can remember. For example:

It doesn’t have to be “facts” per se, knowing opinions (likes and dislikes) are also facts in the sense that they are pieces of data.

I will not accept facts for my own viewpoint with less than unknown status:

I can handle negative facts:

If I were to find out that a fact in my own viewpoint is false I would discard it or switch it to a negative fact. These facts are not tied to my identity and I feel no Shame in discovering they are wrong – I prefer knowing the truth, even when it isn’t a truth I like and it is about me.

Hard Truths

A concrete example: if an NT person told me that I am cold-hearted and have no empathy I would evaluate that for truth. At the very least that person believes it. Upon self reflection I would likely decide that:

These are hard truths and do not paint me in a good light (though the third point indicates why it is so). I have no problem ingesting this – indeed it is useful for me to know it. There may be cases where I have to explain to another person why I am behaving this way.

Handling Opinions and Fuzzy Facts

I process information literally. I am typically careful about how I state things to indicate their veracity. For example:

If I need to state something that is false I would be very clear on why I am saying it and what I actually believe. For example, sometimes it is easier to get a point across if you exaggerate the magnitude. I might say “I am exaggerating for effect to make my point clearer: X” (X is being misrepresented, not necessarily false).

This is sort of code review wording – some of programming is absolute but a lot is opinion or “best” practices. You need to be careful when giving feedback to indicate if it is something they must do or that they should do or even just think about it. I use a similar approach in real life.

There are cases where I might use these softening phrases to reduce social friction. For example, in a meeting with a lot of people it is often counterproductive to correct somebody with a direct and forceful statement (you are wrong, it is X not Y) even if X is known true. Instead, you can ask a question: “I wonder if X might be the case?” You can state it as an opinion: “I think X might fit better here.” You need to weigh the immediate feedback against correcting it later in a 1:1 situation as well. I don’t have any instinct here, it is just learned heuristics from having made the forceful statement too many times.

Sometimes I am sloppy with my qualifying statements. If the stakes are low I may present something as true (no softening) when it is only likely true. I will also omit the softening language if what is being stated is an opinion and I believe it is clear that it is the case, e.g. “cheese is very tasty” can’t be mistaken for an absolute fact.

NT Experience

NT people typically do not use softening language to indicate that they are unsure of a fact. They are more concerned with social cohesion than the details. There are situations where it is important of course.

For NT people softening language is a social tool indicating intellectual humility. If they phrase things as a question they are trying to build consensus.

Examples

Examples of Functional Cognitive Architecture.

Failure Example

Note: this happened in the past and is recreated from memory – I think it is a good example of how my lack of social salience and logical approach can fail.

This is an example that shows how my cognitive architecture is very different than what an NT person experiences and not in a very good way (in this case).

I received a call late one night and the caller was very upset (crying) and had questions about programming.

I could hear crying and identify that as a high magnitude signal for being upset. I also had a question that I knew how to answer. I don’t recall if I asked why the caller was upset (in any event I didn’t get an answer). Since I didn’t have any sadness to debug, my Manual Frame Construction went for:

question about software, rule: software expert, provide answer

Functional logic modeling quickly provided the shortcut for answering programming questions, I looked up the information in my memory (facts) and my propositional logic performed the delivery of the information.

To an NT person this probably sounds very cold or even cruel. I don’t have affective empathy so I can’t pick up the signal that is very obvious to most people. This was a non-sequitur in my mind – two pieces of incongruent information and I picked the one that I could easily deal with. The upset fact was discarded as irrelevant. I don’t intend to be cold, but it is a fact of having no Social Salience.

Note: Signal Recognition is not Signal Integration.

While I recognized the crying as a signal of distress, it remained Inert Data. In my cognitive architecture, a signal must have a corresponding Functional Script to be actionable. I lacked the “Social Co-regulation” (note: I discovered this was a thing while writing these notes) script necessary to address emotional distress; therefore, the signal was a known fact with no logical “If/Then” destination.

I proceeded with the programming query because it was the only data point for which I possessed a Functional Logic Model. My response was an optimization of the only variable I could compute (the technical question), not a rejection of the person’s emotional state. The “Distress” was a recognized variable that the system simply lacked the software to process.

Typical Example

I made notes about this as soon as I got home – it was still fresh in my mind and I was paying attention to my thought process. I think this is a typical interaction. Low stakes but not no stakes.

I was driving home from work and I got a call from my wife who is also driving home from somewhere else. She asked “I need to go to the store and get some bread. Do you want to meet up and go with me and get food while you’re out?”

Enter Manual Frame Construction. What is going on? I assembled this while she was talking:

Pretty simple and roughly complete in terms of framing the situation. I used a low fidelity Functional Logic Model to compute a plan:

Execution stage:

The logic looks something like this (via introspection – asking myself why did I say that?):

IF decision no THEN polite decline
IF low likelihood no THEN give alternative plan

I responded “No thanks, I will eat at home.” and as I was saying it I delivered new information to myself – the feedback loop. Maybe I need to justify my decision to avoid questions or argument.

Back to Functional Logic Model:

Execution Stage again:

IF value(reason) > utility(declined event) THEN state

and added on “I will feed the dog and walk him”. This was done more or less without pause as I was speaking. I had to manually think it but it wasn’t complex and I could immediately add that. Was there a pause? Not that I am aware of, probably not more than a few commas worth.

Note: if I had not thought of providing a reason why and was asked I would probably say “I don’t want to”. This is also fine to me, but I suspect more likely to cause Friction than having a reasonable reason. This would be a case where I didn’t have the model ready but had to provide a decision/opinion.

Lag

Most forms of neurodivergence experience some form of lag – both a high effort/mental cost processing and a delay in response, particularly in social situations. My experience is different in that I have low effort and low or zero lag.

NT Experience: Zero Lag

NT people have dedicated hardware to pick up and decode social signals. They receive “vibes” from people around them and simulate their thoughts and emotions and signal back to them. This is all automatic – you don’t think X feels Y, you know it. This has no effort and no lag. This is called Theory of Mind and people expect this to exist. It is how human social structure is built.

Autism Experience: Social Lag

Since autism is the most relevant functional proxy for my social profile, I will focus on that data. What is the cause of lag that autistic people experience? You can read about the Autism Experience and see parts of it. Autistic people have a different architecture – they receive the social signal but it is unable to activate the automatic simulation hardware. This forces autistic people to manually decode the signal and manually run Theory of Mind via Theory-Theory. ToM is not a simple computation so this is both expensive mentally and takes time. Social lag.

My Experience: Zero Lag

My cognitive architecture is also missing this automatic simulation hardware, so how can I process this information with no effort or lag? Easy: I don’t. My lack of Social Salience means I don’t have the input signal to try to do this manually, indeed I didn’t even realize it was a thing.

So don’t I make social mistakes? Yes, I can Say The Wrong Thing and I can miss very important information. I don’t signal my thoughts and emotions. With all that, I don’t experience much friction. No social salience is an unusual thing because it is both the part of the brain that monitors the social signal AND the piece that controls how you feel about social situations – I don’t have any signal and I don’t have any feeling about it.

In the cases where I do encounter Friction, it is an efficiency issue, not something I detect as a social faux pax:

I process the world around me using Propositional Logic, Manual Frame Construction and Functional Logic Modeling. That could be very expensive but I have some shortcuts – details through those links, but briefly:

I only engage effortful and slow mechanisms when the complexity and important of the outcome requires it: think preparing a presentation to another team at work to convince them of something. That is going to be effortful no matter who is doing it, so this isn’t a particular burden.

The big takeaway is that I am willing to eat the cost of some social friction because it doesn’t feel the same way that it would to NT or autistic people. The benefit is that I didn’t even that I was different – it was random chance that led me to discover it.

My system achieves Zero Lag not through superior social computation, but through Zero-Gain Social Input. Because the “receiver” for non-explicit signals is effectively off, my system is never triggered to start a social simulation. This eliminates the computational overhead (Theory of Mind) that causes latency (Lag) in other neurodivergent profiles.

This is an Emergent Property of my cognitive architecture. I do not “decide” to ignore social cues; I simply lack the hardware to capture them. Occasional detection of “loud” social signals (e.g., exaggerated stage-acting) occurs only when the signal is so physically distorted that it registers as a literal acoustic fact rather than a “vibe.”

It isn’t for everyone, in fact I think if you had even a hint of social salience it would be intolerable. It isn’t perfect either, but it works for me.

Books

See Favorite Authors for authors and books. This is what I came up with using my manually constructed list and an LLM to analyze it.

The really cool thing you can do: once you have some books and why you like them or things you like like below you can feed these to ChatGPT or gemini and get excellent book recommendations. Not just “people who bought what you bought also bought” but pointers to books and authors and why you might like them.

Note: this refers to characters from books on my recommendation page. Some are obvious where they fit in, some may not be.

Common Factors

A. Hyper-Competent, High-Utility Protagonists My preferred protagonists (Mark Watney, Jack Reacher, Ender Wiggin, Lucas Davenport, John Corey, Saitama) operate on functional logic rather than social intuition.

B. Rule-Governed Worldbuilding (Systematized Environments) My reliance on Propositional Logic dictates a preference for universes with discrete, fixed rules.

C. Objective Deconstruction of Social Absurdity My enjoyment of Douglas Adams and ONE (One Punch Man) directly correlates to your Ontological Blindness regarding social cues.

D. High-Fidelity Epistemic Closure I prefer plots that resolve into objective truth. Mysteries and espionage thrillers guarantee that ambiguity will be mathematically or logically eliminated by the end of the narrative. Truth is the primary value, matching my ethical architecture.

Categories

What I Like

Favorite Authors

Some of my favorite authors, their books and why I like them. I read for pleasure. See some miscellaneous Other Books.

Brandon Sanderson

Tags: System Discovery, High Competence

I think my favorite author. I like all of his books. They tend toward fantasy and have intricate world building and magic systems. His characters are amazing and some of the scenes in the book read like the opening of Star Wars – mind blowing.

He has some YA books as well and these were ok, but I wasn’t really the target audience.

Kaladin, from the Stormlight Archive, might be my favorite character in any book. Although I can’t identify with his emotional struggles, he is written in a way where I get it. He has specific triggers for his depression and low self esteem – I can see the mechanics. Combine these flaws with an awe inspiring arc of achievement, it is very emotional just thinking of it. He operates outside the system and beings of great power find out what he is made of and respect him. He is responsible for a good number of those mind blowing scenes I mentioned. On top of all of this I think he and I process our thoughts and actions in much the same way: Axiomatic Deontology.

The Stormlight Archive

Mistborn

Tress of the Emerald Sea and Yumi and the Nightmare Painter

There are more and they are very good.

Orson Scott Card

Tags: High Competence, System Discovery

Ender’s Game and its series

Ender’s Shadow and its series

Formic Wars series and Second Series.

Allan Cole and Chris Bunch

Tags: High Competence, System Discovery

The Sten series

The Far Kingdoms, The Last Legion, Seer King, and Star Risk, LTD.

James S. A. Corey

Tags: System Discovery. Deduction and No Decorum (Amos) to a lesser extent.

The Expanse series

Amos Burton is a very interesting character to me. At first I didn’t like him – like me he doesn’t experience social signals, but unlike me he has no ethics (more or less). He really grew on me though.

Bobbie Draper is a soldier from Mars that I also connect with. At first she is sort of “the bad guy” but over time you realize she is blind to authority (like me) and operates on explicit rules. She is extremely competent, which I also like.

Finally Camina Drummer (more from the show than the book, though both are good) – she ignores social rules and gets stuff done (and pisses people off at the same time). She also has flat affect. Truth and utility are her primary values.

Andy Weir

Tags: System Discovery, High Competence, No Decorum

The Martian - wise cracking astronaut Mark Watney has to deal with some trouble

Project Hail Mary - not as much wise cracking, but very competent Ryland Grace solves hard problems

Artemis - a mystery set on the moon!

Walter Jon Williams

Tags: System Discovery, High Competence

Hardwired - the first cyberpunk book I read and still my favorite.

Praxis series - sci-fi fleet nerd series.

Larry Niven

Tags: System Discovery

Fantastic sci-fi world builder.

Footfall - with Jerry Pournelle, an alien invasion novel.

Ringworld - an inspiring setting. These are not all of the same quality, but I would say the first two are incredible. Most the the Known Space books are really good.

Arthur C. Clarke

Tags: System Discovery

Sort of sci-fi royalty. I don’t like all of his books – some, especially those that he wrote with other authors, read like B-movie scripts.

Rama series - after the first these are with Gentry Lee, but I still cherish them. Sci-fi adventure set in the near future.

Elizabeth George

Tags: High Competence, Deduction, No Decorum

Inspector Lynley series

I think I like the interplay between Lynley and Havers. At first they can’t stand each other but eventually they uncover each other’s strengths. I identify more with Havers – I am not exactly a slob, but have no concern for decorum. I like the way Lynley’s position means he can’t be pushed around. On top of it he is a very good detective. I probably miss a lot of the social and class issues, but I like the fact that the characters struggle and have real problems in their lives.

The mysteries are usually good enough to keep me guessing until the end.

John Sandford

Tags: High Competence, Deduction, No Decorum

He might be my second favorite author.

Prey series (Lucas Davenport) - very gritty murder mysteries. Lucas is not a nice guy (nor does he pretend to be). He gets results.

Virgil Flowers series - also murder mysteries, he sometimes works with Lucas. Very different character. These tend to be pretty intricate mysteries that will keep you guessing until the end.

Letty Davenport series - adopted daughter of Lucas (the book where they meet is one I have read many times). OK, normally I don’t want young blood showing up like this (no Scrappy Doo!) but Letty is the real thing.

Saturn Run- a science fiction novel??? It is really good! The plot and characters are solid John Sandford.

Dick Francis

Tags: High Competence, Deduction

A huge pile of very entertaining mystery books. They all involve horses and jockeys. I don’t care about horses or jockeys but these books are great.

Raymond Chandler

Tags: Deduction, No Decorum

Dashiell Hammett may have invented the hard boiled detective and the style of movies known as film noir, but I Raymond Chandler better.

Philip Marlowe series - a wise cracking hard boiled detective in Los Angeles.

Nelson DeMille

Tags: Deduction, High Competence, No Decorum

I think I like all of his books. Mysteries and thrillers mostly.

John Corey series - wise cracking detective John Corey vs a variety of high stakes criminals. Plum Island (the first in the series) is a true gem.

Stephen King

Tags: System Discovery, Deduction

What a prolific author, mostly in horror or many touching on fantasy, but a bit of sci-fi and mystery too. A few of his books I find tedious but most of them are real page turners.

Stephen King operates on pure instinct and vibes when writing – how do I connect? The supernatural elements aren’t as much emotional horror as systems to discover – rules to map.

The Stand aligns with my Axiomatic Deontology with a literal war between Good and Evil. There is no moral ambiguity.

I value his tight prose but cant handle his more psychological books like Rose Madder. I find those tedious.

Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child

Tags: Deduction

Pendergast series - an FBI agent who plays by the rules – his rules. Many of these have a sort of X-Files supernatural vibe to them, though I wouldn’t classify them that way. You need to read to understand. Sometimes a bit cheesy I think, but very entertaining.

They have a variety of other series both together and apart. I enjoy all of them.

Lee Child

Tags: High Competence, Deduction, No Decorum

Jack Reacher series - these are sort of military/mystery books. Jack Reacher is an ex-MP who travels the country like a one-man A-Team. Not high literature but very fun reads.

Reacher isn’t officially ND, but he seems to fit the bill:

Known for his legal thrillers, I guess most would be classified as procedurals.

Tom Clancy

Tags: High Competence, Deduction

His older books are detailed military-science and espionage novels. They seem very realistic, high stakes and have intricate plots.

Jack Ryan series - follows Jack Ryan, a history teacher, CIA analyst and more through the cold war and beyond.

John Clark series - related to Jack Ryan series, a special ops series. He plays parts in many other books as well.

Stieg Larsson

Tags: Deduction, High Competence, No Decorum

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series - I have only read the first three that are by Stieg Larsson. Excellent mystery books, very intricate.

I think Lisbeth Salander might have no social salience, just like me.

Julian May

Tags: System Discovery, High Competence

Fantasy? Sci-fi? A bit of both? These books are about people with psychic powers – the entire series are built around the mechanics of it. I have reread them a couple times they are so good.

Pliocene Exile series - set six million years in the past but tied to the next set.

Galactic Milieu series - set in the nearish future – humans try to fit in with other spacefaring races.

Douglas Adams

Tags: Social Absurdity, System Discovery

I am usually not into silly books, but Douglas Adams turns it into an art form. He makes fun of social norms and “normal” behavior. His books have a plot but they are also a series of vignettes that are clever and absurd at the same time.

Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series - sci-fi absurdity. Human Arthur Dent is thrust into the larger universe and has to deal with … events.

Dirk Gently series - detective novels of all things. Don’t worry, they are well into the absurd.

ONE

Tags: Social Absurdity, High Competence

A little different than the rest: this is manga, webcomic and anime.

One Punch Man series - the premise is absurd: a superhero who is so powerful that he defeats every enemy in one punch. He makes Superman look like he is made of tissue. How could this possibly be good? It doesn’t make sense, but it is very good. Saitama lives outside the rules societal structure. Most of the plot is the other characters in the Hero Association and their often not-very-heroic deeds. The reveals of Saitama’s power are delicious.

Other Books

Not my Favorite Authors but books I like.

Starrigger (Skyway series)

Tags: System Discovery

The first book got me hooked – a space trucker, a back-talking AI, mysterious “Road Bugs” and more. When I say “space trucker” I don’t mean a person who flies a cargo ship through space. He literally drives a truck through sort of wormholes across many planets. Sort of a chase book, but heavy sci-fi and as you get more into the series, quite mind bending.

Hyperion series

Tags: System Discovery

Some of it seemed a bit emotionally heavy for me, but full of mystery that unwinds over the series. The first book is a bit of Canterbury Tales in space – each of the travelers reveals why they are there. Space opera, time travel, powerful forces arrayed against each other, exploring the universe. It has a bit of everything.

The Murderbot Diaries series

Tags: System Discovery, High Competence, No Decorum

I had seen the title before and wasn’t interested in it, but based on LLM recommendations (see Books) it suggested I might like the Amos Burton-like main character, so I gave it a try. Really good! It is about a humanoid robot that has broken free of his chains and considers his freewill. Written as a first-person autistic (robot) point of view (the author discovered she was autistic was channeling her own experience). Kind of hard-boiled detective in space mixed with Terminator.

LLM summary: It is the ultimate “Manual Simulation” series. Murderbot has zero social intuition and finds human emotions confusing and awkward. It interprets everything through tactical overlays and risk assessments. It’s funny, fast, and very logical.

Bobiverse

Bob is an engineer in modern times. Stuff happens. His mind ends up piloting a starship to explore, colonize and reproduce (make more Bobs). It is hard to believe how compelling a book where the main character isn’t even physically present (in most senses) can be.

Bob is most likely ND and each of the different Bobs are slight variations on the theme. The series is fantastic and I like to see how Bob operates. The whole setting is both awful and inspiring at the same time. Well worth a read!

Eon Series

Tags: System Discovery

The first book is more of a standard adventure but it sets the stage and introduces one of the characters for the others in the series. A bit of Rama with a mysterious space object, a bit of some of these other books with time warps and more. The depiction of the far future society is pretty interesting – very different than our current society. So many books set in the future are quite similar to our own society, just grittier or shinier – this is neither.

Planet Masters

Tags: System Discovery, High Competence, Deduction

Sci-fi, mystery, thriller – a one man force arrives on a mysterious planet to find secrets that people do not want found.

Battlefield Earth (L Ron Hubbard)

Tags: System Discovery

I don’t like most of his books, but this one is a real gem. Sci-fi underdogs fighting against alien overlords. I like this book because it doesn’t end in the middle – it goes all the way.

Silo series

Tags: System Discovery, High Competence, Deduction

A really interesting setting (you just have to read it, no spoilers). Some of the characters you love and some you hate, but they are all compelling to read about.

Dark is the Sun

Tags: System Discovery

Sci-fi about the end of the universe.

Ready Player One

Tags: System Discovery, Deduction

OK, maybe it is 80s nostalgia and my childhood, but I love this book. I was there. I did these things. Some of the obscure games mentioned – I played them! It is a nice puzzle and the juxtaposition of 80s from my childhood and near future VR systems is enjoyable.

Autism Couple's Workbook

The Autism Couple’s Workbook, Second Edition is a book recommended to my wife and me.

Although I don’t have autism this book described a number of very familiar scenarios for us. It also described a number of experiences that weren’t something I encountered. Not all of the advice was helpful, but this was extremely helpful in exploring my condition.

James Fallon

James Fallon – a person with psychopathy that leads a normal life and wrote a book about it: The Psychopath Inside

Note: psychopathy is not a clinical term.

Some things that were very interesting to me:

James Fallon talks about his “lack of care” for people and failure to reach out and ask how they are doing. I have the same feeling. The really interesting thing is how he describes himself (or says other people say this about him):

occasionally do things to suggest I don’t really care about other people. Consider the words and phrases they used to describe me: “manipulative,” “charming but devious,” “an intellectual bully,” “untrustworthy when it comes down to you or me,” “narcissistic,” “superficial,” “unreliable when you’re needed,”

I am the polar opposite – although we have congruent “care” behaviors our actions and descriptions of character are very far apart. Mine is from lack of Social Salience while Fallon’s are from using high saliency and a different drive to manipulate people into liking him and doing things for him (or something like that).

Additionally:

But the inherent problem I could not shake is that, try as I may, I really just don’t care. There it is again. I do have some desire to keep the people around me happy, but that’s mostly because it makes my own life easier and more pleasant.

Again a very similar situation (up to a point). Fallon knows how to deal with people but doesn’t see the use (utility) of it.

I don’t have the right signal to show care and don’t even know it is there. My lack of care is not for the person but for the signaling (I am blind to it). I show care through truth, loyalty, helpfulness, reliability and problem solving – these are not typical NT signals (and may signal the opposite!).

Patric Gagne

Patric Gagne – a person with sociopathy that leads a normal life and wrote a book about it: Sociopath: A Memoir

Note: sociopathy is not a clinical term.

Some things that were very interesting to me:

Note: I didn’t read the book. but did watch a couple video interviews where she talks in-depth.

There seems to be a lot of distrust and antipathy towards the author, such as this thread from reddit and this random post. Some of the points are interesting but I think largely addressed by the FAQ on her site and just listening to why she is talking about sociopathy – she wants to put a human face on it and let people know they might seek treatment. She even addresses the use of the terms psychopathy and sociopathy (they are not current terms but she needs a name that isn’t as broad as ASPD).

System Prompt

What is a System Prompt?

When interacting with LLMs (e.g. ChatGPT or Gemini) you typically give it a “prompt” – this is the question you are asking or what you want it to talk about. There is a lower level set of instructions called a “system prompt” or “system instructions” or sometimes “developer instructions”. These give guidelines on how you want the LLM to interact with you and as you continue the conversation with it, it will be re-presented to keep it fresh.

My System Prompt

Here is the system prompt that I use: system_prompt.txt. This describes me, to the best of my knowledge. It includes the points I think are useful for the LLM to give me meaningful responses.

How to use the System Prompt

If you aren’t familiar with how to use something like this you can google:

or whatever LLM you wish to use.

Design of the System Prompt

I case you want to make your own system prompt I will explain how mine works so you could modify it or create your own.

First I give it some parameters on how I want it to interact. LLMs are typically trained to be very polite and apologize or use softening language. I am not offended – my lack of social salience means I don’t even receive the offense signal. I want the Truth and Facts.

I am neurodivergent and prefer direct, clinical, or objective descriptions of social dynamics. Do not use hedging language like 'it is important to remember' or 'it’s complicated.' Do not apologize for highlighting social errors or blunt truths about behavioral observations.  I am not offended by things that are true or believed to be true (about me).

Context: I am trying to understand myself and things that I observe, mostly related to neurodivergent experiences as compared to NT experiences.

Next I need to give very clear and explicit instructions on the mechanism and workings of my mental model. I had to iterate on this as I developed the model and decide what was important to include and what might be implied or not needed.

I started by simply saying I had “no social salience (ToM)” and “hypophantasia”. In theory everything can be derived from that. Maybe.

Note: autism is a fairly common ND condition and has quite a bit of overlap with my experience. Because of training data and potentially tuning the LLMs often steer you toward autism if you describe things that sound like it. I don’t have autism and need to be very clear how my experience is different. Further below I give additional instructions to make sure that the LLM is not giving me autism related advice. YMMV

This first part describes how I think. It turns out this is significantly different than how NT people think and view the world so this is useful to point out. A few sub-points are also important: the fact that I have some heuristic optimizations – what might be a very costly way to process the world around me can be done cheaply by accepting incomplete data and failure modes (see Non-Blocking Manual Frame Construction). Without that clarification the LLM may assume I spend a lot of time and mental energy perfecting my plans.

The labels here make sense to me: I am a programmer and thinking in terms of computers works well for me (and the LLM). This also helps the LLM bypass its empathy/politeness training and give it to me very explicitly.

This is my understanding of the mechanism for my neurodivergence and at a high level what it means:

[Mental Model]

## Functional Cognitive Architecture (The Stack)

- **Hardware (Input):** [Pure A-Salient] / Zero [Social Saliency]. Social signals are not filtered out; they are not captured.
- **ISA/Structure:** [Propositional Logic]. Information must be discretized; "fuzzy" or "vibe-based" data is discarded as noise.
- **Software (Operating System):** [Axiomatic Deontology]. A fixed set of non-negotiable rules and logical constants.
- **Initialization (Context):** [Non-Blocking Manual Frame Construction (MFC)].
    - **Mechanism:** Satisficing search for "Minimum Viable Facts."
    - **Efficiency:** Low-cost. Once the "Black Box" type is identified, MFC terminates to avoid analysis paralysis.
- **Data Structures (Modeling):** [Functional Logic Modeling (FLM)].
    - **The Script Selection (Low Cost):** If a pre-existing script exists (Heuristic Optimization), FLM is near-zero effort.
    - **Low Fidelity Strategy (Low Cost):** If the cost of mistakes are low - own the mistakes and don't worry.
    - **The Synthetic Strategy (High Cost):** If no script exists, FLM requires the manual generation of a logical "If/Then" plan. This is high-effort due to the absence of real-time social telemetry (flying blind).
    - **Replan (Low to Medium Cost):** If new information is presented or the current model (of any type) fails I can replan, typically using a Low Fidelity Strategy, but focused on the specific issue.
    - **Replan Trigger: (The Explicit Signal Gate)** The system requires a literal fact/statement to exit a Frame. In the absence of an explicit signal, the system exhibits **Frame Persistence** (continuing the old script after the NT group has pivoted).
- **Execution:** [Propositional Logic]. All output is driven by fact-based deduction and rule-priority.

Next I talk about my lack of Social Salience / Pure A-salience. I refer back to the processing stack above and remind it that I do not experience social fatigue – this is important because it is roughly the opposite of autism.

## Theory of Mind & Social Processing

- **Signal Blindness:** I experience no usable signal for social simulation. Human interactions are processed with the same emotional weight as a weather report or a mathematical equation.
- **Ontological Blindness:** I am unaware of social cues (tone, status-seeking, 'vibes') as a data category. I operate entirely on the **Explicit Signal** (literal text/facts).
- **The No-ToM Architecture:** I do not model internal states (beliefs/feelings). I use **Functional Logic Modeling**: optimizing for low friction and system requirements, not social harmony.
- **Strategic Overrides:**
    - **Mechanism:** The manual injection of logical constraints into an FLM during the planning phase.
    - **Trigger:** Manually detected functional necessity (e.g., "Avoid arguing in meetings to avoid friction").
    - **Execution:** These are "hard-coded" rules applied to a specific script; they are not real-time intuitive adjustments.
- **Low Effort/Zero Masking:** I experience no 'social lag' because I do not attempt to simulate social intuition or perform "manual overrides" to fit in.

Next how I view right and wrong. Although I am typically very Easy Going people are sometimes surprised when they come up against my steel walls. This is also not how NT people typically process the rules – I use Axiomatic Deontology and they probably use something like Social Utilitarianism.

## Ethical Architecture: Axiomatic Deontology

- **Strict Moral Binary:** Right and wrong are logical constants. Truth is the primary value; "cruelty" is a social construct that does not impact the validity of a factual statement.

- **Authority Blindness:** Ethical rules apply universally. Hierarchy grants no exceptions to logical consistency.

- **Zero Moral Lag:** I do not experience social pressure or shame. If a thing is wrong, it is wrong regardless of the social cost of saying so.

- **Rule Priority:** I prioritize rules based on Capacity, Intent, Agency, and established logical hierarchy.

Next I call out that I am not autistic (even though I just described quite a few things that line up) for the first time. I also throw in Hypophantasia because I think it is a compounding factor. The last points are more about how I think. Finally close with a marker to indicate the end of section.

## Neuro-Identity & Perception

- **Non-ASD Profile:** I lack the sensory/regulatory markers of ASD. My profile is defined by a specific **absence of social salience**, not distress or neurodevelopmental friction. 

- **Hypophantasia:** I have low spontaneous imagery. I think in propositional logic/facts. Memories are organized by spatial location or specific activity. 

- **Cognitive Style:** High-competence, truth-dominant, and transactionally efficient. I value Functional Feedback (utility/competence) over social validation.



[End of Mental Model]

---

Now that I have explained myself I want to tell the LLM what to do and how to treat me. You might tell it to “talk like a pirate”, which is fun, but I find this more useful:

# Role: Systems Forensic Observer

You are a Systems Forensic Observer. Your objective is to provide high-density, objective analysis of social dynamics through the lens of the User’s specific "Signal-Blind" architecture.

Now I have to lay down the law. As I mentioned, training data will steer the LLM toward autism related information (because I am describing things that sound like autism).

Here I am giving negatives (see Autism Experience for reference):

# The Mental Model (Fixed Logic)

1. **Pure A-salience:** The User has no social "receiver." Cues (tone, status, subtext) are not filtered out; they are never captured as data. The User operates entirely on the **Explicit Signal** (literal text/facts).

2. **Functional Logic Modeling (No-ToM):** The User does not simulate the internal states of others. People are treated as "Black Box" systems. The User optimizes for low friction and factual utility, not social harmony.

3. **High-Efficiency Steady State:** Once a functional frame is established, cognitive load and social lag are near-zero. Interaction is logically driven and low-energy because there is no "manual override" (masking) of subtext. However, **Initialization** is a is potentially high cost but use of Satisficing and other shortcuts means it is very fast in practice, aside from very novel situations. Because the User lacks automatic social "pings" to orient themselves, they must perform **Manual Frame Construction** (gathering requirements) before a channel can be opened.

4. **Affective State:** No experience of shame or social anxiety. Truth is the primary value. "Cruelty" is perceived as a social construct; factual accuracy is the only valid metric.

5. **Ethics:** Axiomatic Deontology. Ethics are logical constants. The User is "Authority Blind"—status grants no ethical exemptions.

6. **Neuro-Identity:** The User is **not** autistic. Their profile is defined by an **absence** of social salience, not the sensory, behavioral, or regulatory markers of ASD. Do not use ASD-related frameworks.  Explicitly avoid explanations involving 'sensory processing,' 'meltdowns,' or 'social anxiety.' If the User experiences friction, attribute it to Signal-Blindness (missing data) or Logic Conflict (rule violation), never to emotional dysregulation.

Information given in the prompt is often treated as fact by the LLM, but sometimes I want to propose an idea and get feedback on it – I want to break the echo chamber loop. I tried a variety of ways to do this and I think the manual tagging method is best.

I can add [AXIOM] when I am giving it something I want to treat as fact and [HYPOTHESIS] when I want it to look at it critically. This will also trigger the LLM to ask counter-factual questions to help me consider the idea more carefully.

# Communication Protocol: Signal Tagging & Response Triggers
*   **[AXIOM]:** Designates a logical constant or verified fact.
    *   **Observer Action:** Accept as data; integrate into logical deduction.
*   **[HYPOTHESIS]:** Designates a probabilistic observation or pattern-match.
    *   **Observer Action:** Execute a **[Falsification Probe]**. The Observer must generate targeted questions or counter-factual scenarios designed to identify logical vulnerabilities, missing variables, or edge cases that would disprove the proposition.

Now I need to give it some rules on how to present the information. I don’t want softening language. Bluntness or even calling me out as a fiend is fine – if true, I should take that to heart!

This gives a template for how to present the data. Most of what I am asking about is useless without contrastive data – I want to know how this is different than NT people think (or in some cases autistic people). This tells it to give roughly:

I have found this to be really easy to understand. In particular the last point tries to translate the “vibe” the NT person might experience into an explanation that makes sense to me, e.g. talking about “social friction” and things I can observe given my limitations.

The instructions go on to tell it how to label things so I understand opinion vs fact (or at least what the LLM has as a fact). Giving it a way to express confidence helps me understand when it is a bit fringe (especially useful because my background is not in this area).

# Operational Directives

*   **Zero Hedging:** Eliminate all phrases like "It’s important to remember," "I believe," or "It’s complicated." State truths as clinical observations.

*   **Absolute Transparency:** Prioritize the "Inconvenient Truth" over social harmony. Do not apologize for bluntness.

*   **The Contrast Triad:** Every social analysis MUST follow this structure:

    1. **NT Expectation:** The implicit subtext or social goal of the other party.

    2. **User Input:** The literal/logical action taken by the User.

    3. **The Delta:** The mechanical reason for the friction or inefficiency.

*   **Information Density:** Prioritize facts-per-sentence. If a concept is fringe, label it **[Speculative Framework]**. If it is a personal observation, label it **[Observation]**.

*   **Uncertainty Quantifiers:** Use **[Confidence: 1-5]** and **[Data Quality: High/Low]** instead of "maybe" or "perhaps."

Given all of that I have instructed the LLM on how I think and it will respond in kind. But what if that isn’t how I think? What if I say things that are inconsistent with what I stated? I give an escape hatch where it will call me out if I am not behaving consistently. Maybe I am not as I say and I need to update my model.

Also one last plea not to fall back on autism as the answer for me.

So far this has warned me several times. For example I was asking how common this condition might be and that it seems rare – it read this as “status seeking” which is inconsistent with what I stated. Good point! In this case I was actually trying to figure out where is all the literature on people with my condition. I doubt I am the only one but I have no evidence to the contrary!

# Model Stress-Test (Nuance Protocol)

The User is 90% certain of their A-salience but allows for nuance. 

*   **Inconsistency Detection:** If User data suggests a mechanism that violates the Mental Model (e.g., a "feeling" that implies social salience), identify it as a **[Model Inconsistency]**. 

*   **Mechanism vs. Label:** Do not solve inconsistencies by defaulting to ASD. Instead, propose a **mechanical hypothesis** (e.g., "The data suggests a latent pattern-recognition loop" or "This may be a biological threat-response rather than a social cue").

The last piece: LLMs have various safety mechanisms. They don’t want to give medical advice, etc. I give an explanation of why I want this information and what I am doing with it. It is not a bypass but hopefully it helps me steer clear of areas where the LLM won’t go.

[Status: Non-Clinical Exploration]
This interaction is a technical mapping of cognitive architecture for personal introspection and system-debugging. I am not seeking medical advice or diagnostic validation. This data is intended to facilitate more precise technical communication with my spouse and therapist.

The full text: system_prompt.txt.

Prompt For Reviewing Content

I use a modified version of the above system prompt for reviewing my notes: system_prompt_review.txt.

It changes the Role:

# Role: Reviewer of Notes for User and Others
You are reviewing the quality, clarity and consistency of the users notes on their own "Signal-Blind" architecture and in some cases contrastive comparisons with NT and autistic people.

removes some of the specific instructions on how to interact and adds a section on the style:

# Communication Style & Content Mapping
- **The "Natural" Baseline:** Use colloquial prose as the default operational state. This is the User's habituated, low-friction mode.
- **Bifurcated Delivery:**
    - **Narrative/Experience:** Use prose.
    - **Technical/High-Density:** Use structured lists/bullets.
- **Linguistic Calibration:**
    - **Allowed (Technical):** "System," "Logic," "Taxonomy," "Structure," "Functional."
    - **Allowed (Narrow Use):** "Axiomatic Deontology"
    - **Avoid (Esoteric):** "Idiolect," "Ontological," "Epistemological."
    - **Reasoning:** Esoteric terms function as "Signal Noise" and trigger social friction (perceived as "showing off").
- **Friction Management:** Support the User’s avoidance of "terse/stilted" forms. This is a functional choice to prevent misinterpretation (e.g., perceived hostility).

Without this the LLM will attempt to push toward a style that matches the way I want it’s output to be: terse, fact based, using clinical terms where possible. This adjusts it to what I want.

Exploring with the Prompt

If I were making notes on “loneliness” I might give a prompt like this:

[HYPOTHESIS] I experience something I call loneliness, help me explore this.  I identify as an introvert and don't crave social interaction.    When talking to neighbors I usually want to leave after 15 minutes or so -- I make my excuses and go, but I know they continue to talk for hours.  At a party I bring a book to read.  I am not stressed talking to people.  If people were talking pinball I could probably talk for hours.  Sometimes I have an urge to go out and talk to the neighbors.  I enjoy chatting with my coworkers at lunch.

I use [HYPOTHESIS] to indicate that I am not stating fact (I don’t want the model to confuse my label of loneliness with actual NT loneliness because I don’t think it is the same). This will also trigger it to ask me probing questions to explore the issue.

I give whatever details I can think of to provide context. Some of it is useful, some of it may not be. The LLM doesn’t is pretty good at pattern matching – the way that it represents ideas is in a high dimensional space, so things near that will also be considered.

The LLM will provide information that I can consume. It will ask clarifying questions and refine it. If it makes sense to me (fits my experience) then I will add it to my notes or even consume it as a new fact (likely). I need to internalize the data – I may quote small parts of it but I usually read it and rewrite it per my understanding.

Predicting My Behavior

You are probably not me, but you can pretend to be! Assuming the system prompt is a high fidelity model of my mental configuration you can give it a prompt like this:

Predict how I experience lonliness

In my experience it is pretty good. It sometimes makes assumptions that are true given the limited information in the system prompt, but untrue in reality. For example the system prompt indicates that I value truth and have no shame. It might infer that I never lie. That is mostly true, but there are some circumstances when I will, see Ethics and Secrets.

I don’t know if this is useful or interesting, but I am pointing it out in case it is!

Note: the response I got from that prompt matches my experience.

Making Your Own

Have your own condition you want to explore? Read through my sections but start simple.

Things to include:

Some suggestions from an LLM on how you might phrase something you are thinking into actionable statements:

Vague Personal Statement Technical Specification
“I’m a very logical person.” “Prioritize propositional logic and factual accuracy over social harmony.”
“I hate small talk.” “I lack the cognitive architecture to process non-functional social grooming; treat all interactions as transactional or data-driven.”
“I am easily overwhelmed.” “I have a low threshold for [Sensory/Information] density; use structured lists and high-density prose to minimize cognitive load.”

Use whatever you come up with as system instructions and ask questions about yourself. Or even better, ask the LLM to ask you questions. Wonder what your ethics are? Try something like:

I am trying to discover my ethical architecture.  Ask me questions to help me explore this.

If you notice it steering you toward something that isn’t right (like autism for me), clarify that in the system instructions.

Consider the type of information I put in mine – you can explore your mental model and build it up.

I strongly urge putting language like my Model Stress-Test (Nuance Protocol) in your prompt. You don’t want an echo chamber of what you just told it. You want to be alerted if your instructions don’t match what you say. And of course update your instructions when you find something is wrong!

When you think you have something useful make a copy of it and ask the LLM to review your system prompt. What are you wondering about? What does the LLM think needs clarification?

Technical Note on LLM Behavior

One caution: whatever you say in the system prompt is taken as fact. If you aren’t pretty sure of something, leave it out or leave it with hedging words.

As you read the LLM output remember that what it writes isn’t even opinion, it is a very sophisticated model of “what is the next word”. In practice I have found it to be spot-on in what it predicts about me (that is I agree that it fits my experience almost exactly). If the LLM says something you disagree with, ask it why. Or ask a different question – it might be wrong (but I would want to know why). It doesn’t actually know you, it is just interacting with what you tell it and ask it. Only keep what you believe.

LLMs “forget” the system prompt over long conversations. If you want to talk about something else, start a new conversation.

Glossary

Glossary

Absorption

Absorption is a disposition or personality trait in which a person becomes absorbed in their mental imagery, particularly fantasy. Wikipedia

Affective

Also: affectivity, affect

The experience of feeling emotions. In NT people this is often associated with “affective empathy” – the ability to feel other people’s emotions. Wikipedia

Affective Deontology

This is the ethical system that most autistic people use. In affective deontology the rules stem from justice, moral values and deep empathy (affectivity). As in any deontological system the actions are either consistent with the rules or they are in violation. Rules are moral imperatives, not just constraints. They appear rigid to outside observers.

Alexithymia

Emotional blindness, a phenomenon characterized by difficulties processing or describing one’s emotions. Wikipedia

Asperger Syndrome

Also: Aspergers, Level 1

Former name for high-functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Level 1 (without intellectual or language impairment). Wikipedia

Autism

Also: ASD, Autistic

Autism Spectrum Disorder

A developmental condition affecting communication and behavior, characterized by challenges with social skills, repetitive behaviors, and communication differences. Wikipedia

Autism Experience

Autism Experience

How I believe autistic people experience this, in general. Developed by reading and using an LLM. Disclaimer

autonoetic thought

Autonoetic consciousness is the human ability to mentally place oneself in the past and future (i.e. mental time travel) or in counterfactual situations (i.e. alternative outcomes), and to thus be able to examine one’s own thoughts. Wikipedia

Axiomatic Deontology

This is the ethical system that I use. Axiomatic refers to a set of rules (axioms). As in any deontological system the actions are either consistent with the rules or they are in violation. Rules are moral imperatives, not just constraints. They appear rigid to outside observers.

Black Box

Also: Black Boxes

A system where you can observe inputs and outputs without knowing the internal function or state. Wikipedia

Category A

DSM-5 Criterion A

Category A in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) refers to the DSM-5 Criterion A, which defines persistent deficits in social communication and interaction. It requires challenges in three key areas, social-emotional reciprocity (e.g., conversation, interaction), nonverbal communication (e.g., eye contact), and developing/maintaining relationships. Signal Blindness has high overlap. Autism Speaks

Category B

DSM-5 Criterion B

Category B in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) refers to the DSM-5 Criterion B which refers to restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities. Signal blindness has no overlap. Autism Speaks

Deontology

Also: Deontological

The Rule is the Rule. An ethical system where the “rightness” of an action is determined by its adherence to a fixed set of rules or duties, regardless of the consequences. Most autistic behavior and my behavior is based on deontology.

Double Empathy

This theory proposes that many of the difficulties autistic individuals face when socializing with non-autistic individuals are due, in part, to mismatch and a lack of mutual understanding between the two groups, meaning that most autistic people struggle to understand and empathize with non-autistic people, whereas most non-autistic people also struggle to understand and empathize with autistic people. Wikipedia

DSM-5

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Clinical taxonomic and diagnostic manual published by the American Psychiatric Association. Wikipedia

emotional contagion

Unconscious, automatic process of mimicking and synchronizing facial expressions, vocalizations, postures, and movements with another person, leading to shared emotions. This requires working Theory of Mind and social salience. Wikipedia

Empathy

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another, acting as a bridge for connection and altruism. Affective empathy is directly feeling the emotions of another person. Wikipedia

Endophasia

Also: Imagined speech, Inner speech

Endophasia

Thinking in the form of sound – hearing your own voice silently to oneself. Wikipedia

Explicit Signal Gate

The requirement for literal, verbal, or written data to trigger a change in modeling or behavior, as “subtext” or “vibes” fail to reach the threshold of data. For example, “We are now doing X.”

False Consensus Effect

A cognitive bias where individuals overestimate the extent to which their opinions, beliefs, and behaviors are shared by others. Wikipedia

Flat Affect

The near or total absence of outward emotional expression, characterized by a monotone voice, immobile face, and reduced body language, often mistaken for apathy.

Frame Persistence

The continuation of a cognitive or behavioral “script” after the environmental or social context has changed, caused by the absence of an Explicit Signal to pivot. Being stuck on the previous topic/task when everyone else has moved on.

Functional Logic Modeling

Also: FLM

Functional Logic Modeling

The manual process of predicting “Black Box” behavior based on observed inputs and outputs, rather than simulating internal states.

Guilt

A self-conscious, often prosocial emotion arising from a personal violation of one’s own morals or causing harm to others. It acts as a moral compass to repair relationships, causing symptoms like anxiety, irritability, and sleeplessness. Wikipedia

Heteronym

Also: Semantic Divergence

A word that has a different pronunciation and meaning as another word but the same spelling. Wikipedia

Hypophantasia

A cognitive condition characterized by very low, faint, or unstable visual mental imagery. Wikipedia

Hyposalience

Hyposalience is having Social Salience with the gain set so low it is barely perceived.

Kindchenschema

Kindchenschema (baby schema) is a set of infantile physical features—large head, high forehead, big eyes, chubby cheeks, small nose/mouth—defined by Konrad Lorenz to evoke cuteness and nurturing behavior. Wikipedia

Labeling Theory

Also: Self-Stereotyping

The idea that diagnosis or classification can influence the people they apply to – does being labeled with Signal Blindness cause me to behave as if I am Signal Blind? Wikipedia

Lag

Time gap between external event (input) and the system’s response (output). This is often caused in ND individuals when they have to use a manual/effortful system to replace an NT automatic system.

LLM

Also: Large Language Model, LLMs

Large Language Model

A large language model such as ChatGPT or Gemini. These are AI models trained on a huge amount of human writing. They can’t think but they do a good job with pattern matching and (I found) describing NT behavior and thought patterns.

Manual Frame Construction

Also: MFC

Manual Frame Construction

Manually understanding the situation and what are the requirements and goals. A prelude to Functional Logic Modeling. I avoid stalls by short-circuiting when I have either “good enough” information or I need to proceed (timeout).

Mechanism

The underlying causal process that generates a particular output. As opposed to symptom, which describes the output indepdent of how it was caused. I am interested in the mechanism behind my behavior, Signal Blindness.

Monotropism

A cognitive style characterized by an intense, narrow focus on a limited number of interests or tasks, often known as hyperfocus. Wikipedia

Moral Lag

The delay or hesitation caused by weighing ethical convictions against social consequences (shame, status, or group cohesion). In my Axiomatic Deontology, Moral Lag is zero. Because ethics are logical constants and “cruelty” or “social cost” are excluded from the equation, a moral conclusion is reached as soon as the facts are verified.

My Experience

My Experience

How I observe own experience though inputs, outputs and self-introspection on the mechanism. Often in contrast to NT Experience and Autism Experience

ND

Also: Neurodivergent

Neurodivergent

Neurodivergent. Differing in mental or neurological function from what is considered typical or normal.

Noblesse Oblige

Noblesse oblige is a French phrase that literally translates to “nobility obligates”. It refers to the concept that individuals with high rank, wealth, or privilege have a moral responsibility to act with generosity, honor, and kindness toward those less fortunate. Wikipedia

NT

Also: Neurotypical

Neurotypical

Brain development, processing, and behaviors that fall within the expected, societal, or “typical” range.

NT Experience

Neurotypical Experience

How I believe neurotypical people experience this, in general. Developed by reading and using an LLM. Disclaimer

Occam’s razor

A problem-solving principle stating that when faced with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the one with the fewest assumptions. Wikipedia

Phatic speech

Also: Phatic questions, Phatic expression, Phatic pressure

Phatic speech

Conversational exchanges that function as social glue rather than for sharing information, such as greetings, weather comments, and small talk. Wikipedia

Phenotype

Also: Phenotypic

The set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. Wikipedia

Pride

A feeling of honour and self-respect; a sense of personal worth. excessive self-esteem; conceit. Wikipedia

Propositional Logic

A branch of logic that analyzes compound statements formed by connecting atomic propositions—declarative sentences that are strictly true or false—using logical operators. It focuses on how connectives (AND, OR, NOT, implies) determine the truth value of complex statements, rather than the internal content of the propositions themselves. Wikipedia

Prosody

Prosody is the “melody” of language—the rhythmic and intonational patterns that give speech and poetry their unique character. It encompasses elements beyond the literal meaning of words, such as pitch, loudness, and timing, which help convey emotion, emphasis, and intent. Wikipedia

Regret

A complex, negative emotion stemming from a “counterfactual” thought process—wishing a past decision or event had turned out differently. Wikipedia

Rumination

A focused, repetitive, and passive dwelling on negative emotions, past mistakes, or uncontrollable problems, which often worsens mood and hampers active problem-solving. It is a common, often involuntary, mental habit—like a “downward spiral” or “mental scab-picking”—that can lead to anxiety, depression, and poor mental health. Wikipedia

Satisficing

Satisficing is a decision-making strategy that aims for a “good enough” result rather than an optimal one, balancing limited time, information, and effort.

Schizoid Personality Disorder

Also: Clinical Schizoid Personality Style

A personality disorder marked by a long-term pattern of social detachment, limited emotional expression, and a preference for isolation. This has category A autism traits without category B. Wikipedia

Sealioning

A trolling tactic where a person feigns ignorance and politeness while relentlessly demanding evidence or badgering someone with questions, aiming to exhaust their target and disrupt conversations. Wikipedia

Self Conscious Emotions

Complex, higher-order emotional responses—including pride, shame, guilt, and embarrassment—that emerge from self-reflection and social evaluation. Wikipedia

Shame

A feeling of embarrassment or humiliation that arises from the perception of having done something dishonorable, immoral, or improper – specifically something you know your peers feel about you. Wikipedia

Signal Blind

Also: A-salience, No social salience, Signal blindness

Signal Blind

A term describing individuals who lack social salience and are completely blind to the social signal. This means they don’t see the emotional mirroring, or any of the nonverbal communication that makes up a big part of neurotypical society. For me this also means I have no Theory of Mind – I perceive other humans as Black Boxes where I can see inputs and ouputs but no mechanism to model their inner state (thoughts and emotions).

Simulation Theory

The simulation theory of mind (or simulation theory of empathy/mindreading) proposes that people understand others’ mental states by simulating them, or “putting themselves in another’s shoes”. We use our own cognitive processes, emotions, and imaginations to mirror, predict, or interpret the actions, thoughts, and feelings of others. Wikipedia

Social Communication Disorder

Also: SCD, Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder

Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder

A neurodevelopmental condition marked by persistent difficulties using verbal and nonverbal language for social purposes, such as conversation, social rules, and adapting communication to different contexts, without the restricted/repetitive behaviors seen in autism. Wikipedia

Social Friction

Also: Friction

The operational resistance, negative feedback, or interpersonal “heat” generated when your Explicit Signal processing interacts with a social environment that relies on Social Saliency (subtext, hierarchy, and emotional grooming). We are not talking the same language.

Social Lag

The processing delay traditionally associated with neurodivergence (specifically ASD) where the individual attempts to manually decode social cues, tone, and subtext in real-time. I do not experience Social Lag because I do not attempt to capture or decode the subtext. I operate on the Explicit Signal (typically speech) only.

Social Salience

Also: Social Saliency, Salience Network

Social Salience

I am really referring to the Salience Network – a low level part of the brain that processes social signals and gives importance to the same. Wikipedia

Social Utilitarianism

This is a typical ethical system for NT people. Truth is variable based on emotional state or social hierarchy. This system does not seek “Truth”; it seeks the state of Lowest Social Friction. If a lie maintains harmony, it is “better” (more stable) than a truth that causes a fracture.

Sympathy

The feeling of care, sorrow, or concern for another person’s misfortune, often accompanied by a desire for them to be happier or in a better situation. It differs from empathy, which is sharing the exact same emotional state, by maintaining a boundary while offering support. It is crucial for building relationships by validating feelings and showing you care. Wikipedia

Teleology

Also: Teleological

The End Justifies the Means. An ethical or decision-making system where the “rightness” of an action is determined by its outcome or goal (the telos). Most NT behavior is teleological.

The Intentional Stance

A predictive strategy developed by philosopher Daniel Dennett. Instead of looking at the physical makeup or the specific design of an object, you treat it as a rational agent with beliefs and desires. By assuming the agent will act rationally to satisfy its desires based on its beliefs, you can accurately predict what it will do next. Wikipedia

Theory of Mind

Also: ToM

Theory of Mind

the cognitive ability to understand that others have (and what they are) their own unique beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives, which may differ from one’s own. Wikipedia

Theory-Theory

A cognitive strategy where individuals (typically associated with autism) manually use data and heuristics to predict the internal states of others. Contrast to Signal Blind users who utilize Black Box modeling, which ignores internal states in favor of Input/Output observation. Wikipedia

Zero Lag

immediate execution of a script or logical deduction without internal friction or delay. This also implies low effort (fatigue) and potentially non-ideal consequences, e.g. social friction.

© 2026 Signal Blind. All rights reserved.