I realise how exhausting it must be to put yourself out there and under the scrutiny of strangers, especially with the need to not leave loose threads and untruths hanging, so I'll try to keep it short and don't expect an answer :)
1. I feel like this is often a miss-understanding between neurotypicals and many neuroatypicals (not limited to autism, but also including disorders with emotional dysregulation, anxiety and others). Neurotypicals often finish each others sentences to signal understanding and engagement, or as a means of implicitly checking if they are still on the same page.
It's a bit like a checksum, a heartbeat package, or a TCP Ack.
"So we should make the cache at least..." - "Three times as large!" - "Yeah or four times for good measure."
For somebody who has trouble reading the intentions of others (as with autism), or who have a tendency to feel judged and controlled (as with anxiety or BPD), this often comes across as a rude interjection.
2. You can't know the aspect. Sometimes it's apparent from context, but most of the time neurotypicals just do a wild guess, and provide some answer. It is up to the other party to clarify, and given that they are the ones with the request, they will probably do so until they receive a satisfying answer.
3. Of course. Nobody expects you to just make stuff up, or have unfounded opinions. But I've noticed a certain tendency of people on the spectrum to vastly prefer forward chaining over backward chaining reasoning, whereas it's the other way around for neurotypicals. The truth I was trying to get at is that often there is no clear answer even if you had all the information available, and even worse often times it doesn't matter. Your company will probably be equally successful with react or elm, because it's other factors that are much more influential for success. With forward chaining reasoning that's a bit of a problem, because you can reach a point where there's no real path forwards. With backwards chaining you can just presume that some missing piece of information will eventually pop up or not matter that much and continue.
It's akin to Goedels first incompleteness theorem paraphrased very roughly: You can either have a system of reasoning that's consistent or one that's complete, but not both. Forward chaining gives you a consistent system, but you will have cases where you can't proceed, whereas backwards chaining allows you to sometimes just assume missing facts to be true, allowing you to take "a leap of faith". Those facts might actually be (unprovably) true or they might lead you to mistakes/inconsistencies.
That's not to say that backwards chaining is superior, forward chaining will allow you to more thoroughly explore the search space for which you _have_ all the facts, and it's a lot less likely to bring you to wrong conclusions.
4. Yeah maybe that is actually a problem that the industry has as a whole, and not specific to neuro(a)typicality. Sadly it's often, strong opinions, strongly held.
1. I feel like this is often a miss-understanding between neurotypicals and many neuroatypicals (not limited to autism, but also including disorders with emotional dysregulation, anxiety and others). Neurotypicals often finish each others sentences to signal understanding and engagement, or as a means of implicitly checking if they are still on the same page.
It's a bit like a checksum, a heartbeat package, or a TCP Ack.
"So we should make the cache at least..." - "Three times as large!" - "Yeah or four times for good measure."
For somebody who has trouble reading the intentions of others (as with autism), or who have a tendency to feel judged and controlled (as with anxiety or BPD), this often comes across as a rude interjection.
2. You can't know the aspect. Sometimes it's apparent from context, but most of the time neurotypicals just do a wild guess, and provide some answer. It is up to the other party to clarify, and given that they are the ones with the request, they will probably do so until they receive a satisfying answer.
3. Of course. Nobody expects you to just make stuff up, or have unfounded opinions. But I've noticed a certain tendency of people on the spectrum to vastly prefer forward chaining over backward chaining reasoning, whereas it's the other way around for neurotypicals. The truth I was trying to get at is that often there is no clear answer even if you had all the information available, and even worse often times it doesn't matter. Your company will probably be equally successful with react or elm, because it's other factors that are much more influential for success. With forward chaining reasoning that's a bit of a problem, because you can reach a point where there's no real path forwards. With backwards chaining you can just presume that some missing piece of information will eventually pop up or not matter that much and continue.
It's akin to Goedels first incompleteness theorem paraphrased very roughly: You can either have a system of reasoning that's consistent or one that's complete, but not both. Forward chaining gives you a consistent system, but you will have cases where you can't proceed, whereas backwards chaining allows you to sometimes just assume missing facts to be true, allowing you to take "a leap of faith". Those facts might actually be (unprovably) true or they might lead you to mistakes/inconsistencies.
That's not to say that backwards chaining is superior, forward chaining will allow you to more thoroughly explore the search space for which you _have_ all the facts, and it's a lot less likely to bring you to wrong conclusions.
4. Yeah maybe that is actually a problem that the industry has as a whole, and not specific to neuro(a)typicality. Sadly it's often, strong opinions, strongly held.
---
Text based mediums for the win!