> The OCD mention functions similarly and it explains the overanalysis as a feature, not something that might be creating friction with colleagues.
Because it is both and this is a very classic problem for neurodivergent people.
As a ADHD person I could very much relate. My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead and can see potential problems and solutions so much earlier.
Of course this doesn't help. If I point these things out, I will only be met with resistance regardless if I happen to be right later on or not.
So really the best solution is to just shut up. Let them catch up eventually. It just feels so isolating and frustrating. Not only do I have to mask the deficits that ADHD gives me but also my talents.
I think this is the core issue here. OP is hated and discriminated for their OCD. Corporations are not equipped harness the talents of people that think differently. They are not a "culture fit".
I don't really have a solution. Yes you can learn to mask and play the game but that is also not healthy in the long term.
> My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead and can see potential problems and solutions so much earlier.
A little humility would probably help a lot. Your post is already blaming everyone else for not listening to you. This isn't really about you thinking differently.
Oh I am sorry for highlighting one of the side effects of my crippling disability.
I did not even present it as an advantage but as something that causes feelings of isolation but I guess I am bragging about it and need more humility.
My brain's filtering function is defect. Where neurotypical people see one or two possible solution my brain automatically comes up with ten which is great for creativity but also paralyzing. Where neurotypical people can easily control their focus I can't.
Now I do think people that present their ADHD as a superpower are full of shit but I think it is fair to point out that some of the aspects could also be strengths if the structure I work with would allow them to be strengths. I think that is very fair to criticize.
I assure you that a significant chunk of my energy is spend every day in adjusting my communication to the needs of neurotypical people and always second guessing myself and improving how I do that. It just sucks that they get quite angry if I ever suggested they adjust their communication just a tiny bit for my sake.
Neither ADHD nor OCD have anything to do with communication style, 'being five steps ahead,' or patterns of interpersonal friction. The only symptom that remotely fits here is impulsive speech, and that's sporadic, it doesn't produce a consistent pattern of seeing yourself as above your colleagues, and its not related to the content style of the speech.
This is something i see allot of. People project what they want onto their pet diagnosis, without knowing what the diagnosis actually is. And god know what people mean when they say neurodevergent these days. The only thing i know for certain is that it never maps on to anything from real spectrum disorders.
OCD is ritualistic and compulsive behavior, often performed to decrease a negative feeling. It has nothing to do with anything described in the article or this thread. What does fit the described behavior: Rigidity, perfectionism, a need to do things the 'correct' way regardless of social cost,is OCPD, which is something completely different. And there is another diagnosis that is blindingly obvious but i wont name it out here.
There should also be noted that there are plenty of extremely smart people who don't end up in this pattern. If you're looking for myths, start with the myth of the troubled genius.
And a gift of seeing all possible solutions obviously doesn't extend to the interpersonal friction you're describing. The person you're replying to tried to point this out, and tried to communicate that you are missing something about the situation. I doubt it's the first time someone has. This reply is itself an example that just confirms the hypothesis: Someone offered feedback, and instead of sitting with it, you defended, reframed, and redirected blame outward. That's exactly the pattern I described.
> And there is another diagnosis that is blindingly obvious but i wont name it out here.
I wonder why a self identified mental health professional would go to such lengths to deny the viewpoint many of autistic people, who frequently report that the truth of what they say matters far less to organizations than the manner in which they say it.
Because it’s annoying that people can’t even stick with the criteria that are basically the same across all the major diagnostic manuals. And because I believe that words and concepts should mean somethin. Because it’s proof that they are not really as focused on details as they claim.
Every time someone wrongly claim they have PTSD, which is a lot these days, they water down and diminish the experience of people who have experienced severe and real trauma.
Said another way. Because it’s egotistical.
For the record, I have worked with hundreds of people with ASD and helped them understand how to navigate social relations. And I’ve tried to work with people that claim they have ASD, but in reality, just use it as an excuse to be a jackass. Guess which ones of them are defensive with regards to their pet diagnosis?
You sound like a dreadful psychologist if true. You clearly do not have empathy or understanding or tou have burned out and need a break. Your so assured in your antagonistic retorts that you are unraveling the very point of trust you staked to give your opinion social validation....You are lacking aelf awareness and it shows that clearly you are generalizing the diagnoses and possibily you just over diagnose narcissism because its easier?
There is absolutely no empathy in not helping people with the actual problem. Using ASD protocol on someone who has a personality disorder is going to make things worse.
It sounds to me like you have no empathy for all the people who are afraid to acknowledge that they have an autism diagnosis because it has become a fashionable diagnosis.
If you look at your response to me making serious points about the need for valid diagnoses and criteria to conduct proper research and find the best treatment methods for everyone, you use this to assume that I don’t think everyone should get help.
For instance, I get extremely annoyed when people misdiagnose borderline personality disorder by calling it bipolar. If you use the treatment protocol for bipolar disorder, you’re going to make it worse for the person.
Do you think I’m dismissing their suffering and dismissing their plight? I love helping people. How many people have you heard of going to a clinician and ending up talking about something that wasn’t really their issue, spending years going through the motions? Much of that is not working on the correct problem. So I actually think it’s extremely dangerous, destructive, and unempathic towards the people who are suffering to glorify avoidance of the real issues and attack anybody who tries to help people focus on the issue.
The best example of how naïve you are regarding real psychological therapy is when you say it’s easier to diagnose narcissistic personality disorder. It’s one of the hardest things to do. It’s infinitely easier to just agree with everything the person says, give them the ADHD or PTSD diagnosis, and let them sit with it for 10 years while suffering and avoiding working on themselves.
I honestly hope you are lying about your profession, rather than venting your personal frustrations with clients by arguing with people that you believe resemble them online.
I have absolutely no frustration with my clients. Be it psychopaths, social anxiety, pedophilia, or schizophrenia. I think I currently actually like all of my clients. And I think all of them I appreciate my approach. Because with them, I don’t care about labels. I only care about figuring out together what the real problem is. Can I accept who they are no matter what their problem is, or who they are. The only thing I “fight”, metaphorically, against self deception.
That doesn’t mean that diagnosis is are handy quick references for the topic at hand.
Obviously, I don’t talk so directly confrontation with my clients as I do on a forum, but I follow the same principle. If I disagree on their own self assessment, I talk with them about it until we both agree on what the real problem is. Sometimes I’m wrong. Sometimes the diagnosis label people give themselves is a defense mechanism.
Yes. The terrible ideology of working on yourself not blaming the world! It’s only the core of almost all psychotherapy approaches, self-help book, secular self improvement programs, and religions ever.
I find that there is a big difference between how people that use the fact that they are "A perfectionist OCD person".
Some wield it at a weapon. Some use it as an excuse. Some start with the assumption that it can be harness into something good. And some beat them self up over it uses it to degrade them self.
I think its most helpful to view it as a "know thy self" data point, and not make it someone else problem, but use it as information as to what is ones own challenges that must be kept in check. And if one is relay good, use it for something productive.
A great way for cultivating internalized self hatred and burn out.
You approach isn't wrong per se and might be the right one for some people. Some people need to be told to take more personal responsibility
But other people take too much personal responsibility already and only blame themselves and need to be told that they have a disability and it is their right to ask for accessibility and help. That the world is part of the problem.
The people to who take too much responsibility are not the one that "makes it other peoples problem", unless they are suffering from a dependent personality disorder.
And even then, consider rearranging what you just said in your reply. You are saying: You have to make it someone else problem to avoid self hatred and burnout.
There is a difference in relying and getting support from people, and being a jackass.
The trick is to be the Oracle of Delphi, not Cassandra.
Make the prediction once, with politeness and humility, and preferably in enough company that your opinion is noted even if (when) it is overridden. Use it as an opportunity to be seen as wise, not just smart.
Then, keep contingency plans. When the problem manifests, have a solution ready as best you can given your limited position. Even when it's too late to avoid the whole problem, you might be able to limit the blast radius. Again, be public but polite about it, and most importantly never say "I told you so" or otherwise appear smug.
You want to cultivate the reputation of "the person who is right but easy to work with, and who always has your back in a pinch."
I'd push back gently on 'just shut up' as the solution. In my experience, people like you are usually CORRECT about the problem, and the anger and annoyance is well funded. It can be annoyance with the bad architecture, the wasteful meetings, the dysfunctional team dynamics. But you are falling into the same pattern as the author... Where it breaks down is treating 'being right' as the end of the job. Figuring out how to get others to see what you see, that's the actual unsolved problem, and it is more often than not solvable. Giving up on it means real problems stay unfixed, which helps nobody. If you channel the energy into solving what annoys you, in a productive way, you make both your life and your team better.
> Figuring out how to get others to see what you see
but this is exactly the point of article: event if you make them see, they just pretend they don't because it's not in their personal immediate interest to admit you are right or you were right (later)
It absolutely is. I don't understand how people are so delusional to think that their AI slop has any value.
If I were fine with AI, I could just prompt the LLM myself to create a course perfectly catered to me. Why would I need you? Because your prompting skills are magic? Yeah, no. That is like charging for google search results because you searching skills are so great.
The whole problem with Duolingo is that it got so much worse once they started using AI. Switching to another AI driven project would be out of the frying pan into the fire.
D has three high quality compiler implementations. It has been around for ages and is very stable and has a proven track record.
Zig has one implementation and constant breaking changes.
D is the far more pragmatic and safer choice for serious projects.
Not that Zig is a bad choice but to say that a unstable lang in active development like Zig would be a better choice for "serious projects" compared to a very well established but less popular lang shows the insanity of hype driven development.
> My (likely unfair) impression of D is that it feels a bit rudderless
The more positive phrasing would be that it is a very pragmatic language. And I really like this.
Currently opinionated langues are really in vogue. Yes they are easier to market but I have personally very soured on this approach now that I am a bit older.
There is not one right way to program. It is fun to use on opinionated language until you hit a problem that it doesn't cover very well and suddenly you are in a world of pain. I like languages that give me escape hatches. That allow me to program they way I want to.
> The fact that C# is becoming the GC language in game dev is proving my point.
That is just the Unity effect. Godot adopted C# because they get paid to do so by Microsoft.
C# allows for far lees control over the garbage collection compared to D. The decision to use C# is partly responsible for the bad reputation of Unity games as it causes a lot of stutters when people are not very careful about how to manage the memory.
The creator of the Mono runtime actually calls using C# his Multi-million dollar mistake and instead works on swift bindings for Godot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzt36EGKEZo
C# wouldn't be a problem for Unity if they hadn't mapped most engine abstractions to class hierarchies with reflection-based dispatch instead of value-type handles and the seldom interface, and had dropped the Boehm GC. .NET has actually got a lot of features to avoid allocations on the hot paths.
I agree Mono is bad compared to upstream .NET, but I used to write game prototypes with it back before .NET Core without as many performance issues as I still find in Unity. It was doable with a different mindset.
AFAIK, the original reason to build IL2CPP was to appease console certification and leave behind Mono's quirky AOT on iOS. Capcom is also using their own C# implementation targeting C++ for console certification.
Allegedly some games are now managing to ship on console with ports of .NET NativeAOT.
Detention without trial is also a thing in the UK. Legally limited to 6 months but extended in practice if you are Irish or advocate against the genocide in Palestine. Ask the people of Palestine Action UK.
With the growing fascism all over the world we will see that kind of thing more often.
> This trial marks the first attempt in Britain to treat political property damage as equivalent to terrorism - an unprecedented and dangerous expansion of state power. Under the current Labour government, many defendants will have spent nearly two years behind bars before even standing trial.
Everyone in this thread is conflating/misunderstanding various things and seems a little misinformed.
"Detention without trial" is a thing in the UK, as well as the US, Canada, and many (most?) other countries, even those considered non-authoritarian or whatever, for lots of crimes, not just politically convenient ones. This isn't a new thing because of growing fascism, it's literally the distinction between "jail" and "prison", or what the bail system is for. Court systems don't have the capacity to try everyone immediately upon arrest, and in various ways, look to balance that with the right to a speedy trial, the right to a presumption of innocence, justice, and public safety.
(I'm not making any judgement on the balance Britain is striking in this particular case, which sounds bad!)
But what OP is pointing out as problematic in Singapore's case is 1) detention without even being charged with a crime, which is what the UK government website linked above says is forbidden beyond a relatively short time frame and 2) the absence of any kind of a right to a speedy trial.
Trial delays and court backlogs in the UK are indeed terrible, as few people here would disagree. They are not without court oversight (remand hearings, etc). They affect many people – rape victims being a notable example – and I do not believe that these systemic problems are politically motivated.
> The last part is why all the most socially realistic depictions of societies like this are post-scarcity where they've mastered some kind of sci-fi energy source (cheap easy fusion, antimatter, tapping the zero point, etc.).
Yeah, Marx already had these kind of discussions in the 19th century.
It is very interesting that you arrived to similar conclusions while employing a very different methodology.
Marxism evolved out of a criticism of what they call utopian socialism. Marx realized that socialism could only be build upon the massive development of productivity forces that would lead towards a post scarcity society.
Which is also why actually existing socialism struggled so hard. A revolution is more likely to occur in the least developed parts of the world but that also means it will be one of the hardest places to implement socialism in. Especially while having to defend itself against the rest of the world.
Many Marxists didn't even believe it could be possible to build socialism in such a condition but the Soviet Union proved otherwise. It brought many millions of people out of poverty but also had to make some hard and maybe sometimes wrong choices.
The good news is that these days even the least developed parts of the world are vastly more developed than they were in the 19th or 20th century. Modern actually existing socialism will look vastly different. Plus the rot of the latest stage of capitalism is showing more and more.
Not really. Marx didn't know anything about game theory. But he did come up with some adjacent ideas.
> the Soviet Union proved otherwise. It brought many millions of people out of poverty but also had to make some hard and maybe sometimes wrong choices.
I think that's giving the USSR way too much credit. Had they had, say, a more boring democratic revolution and joined social democratic Europe they'd have done a whole lot better.
If will write you an C compiler by hand for 19k and it will be better than what Claude made.
Writing a toy C compiler isn't that hard. Any decent programmer can write one in a few weeks or months. The optimizations are the actually interesting part and Claude fails hard at that.
> Don't let the AI lobby insist on anything that's touched an LLM getting labelled, because if it gets slapped on anything that's even passed through a spell-checker or saved in Notepad
People have been writing articles without the help of an LLM for decades.
You don't need an LLM for grammar and spell checking, arguably an LLM is less efficient and currently worse at it anyway.
The biggest help a LLM can provide is with research but that is only because search engines have been artificially enshitified these day. But even here the usefulness is very limited because of hallucinations. So you might be better off without.
There is no proof that LLMs can significantly improve the workflow of a professional journalist when it comes to creating high quality content.
So no, don't believe the hype. There will still be enough journalists not using LLMs at all.
Because it is both and this is a very classic problem for neurodivergent people.
As a ADHD person I could very much relate. My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead and can see potential problems and solutions so much earlier.
Of course this doesn't help. If I point these things out, I will only be met with resistance regardless if I happen to be right later on or not.
So really the best solution is to just shut up. Let them catch up eventually. It just feels so isolating and frustrating. Not only do I have to mask the deficits that ADHD gives me but also my talents.
I think this is the core issue here. OP is hated and discriminated for their OCD. Corporations are not equipped harness the talents of people that think differently. They are not a "culture fit".
I don't really have a solution. Yes you can learn to mask and play the game but that is also not healthy in the long term.
reply