/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11134775
I used to think that, but I don't think it's intended to confuse anybody. Neurotypical people default to interpreting speech their way and don't except anyone to do otherwise, as it would be too difficult for them to do it the autistic way.

Words are by default mean to be interpreted by their impact they have on listeners, and only words pronounced with special emphasis are meant to be interpreted literally. This is necessary, as decoding the literal meaning is a high level skill that needs conscious effort, rathen than a base skill that is mostly automatic and needs minimum attention.

The effect is not completely unlike to when linguists tried to decode hieroglyphics literally, leading to bizarre interpretations like, in the made up example in the picture - "point and see one [who] struck the tower of deafness, where lions protect treasure from bats.". It wasn't until a bilingual text was found when li guists realized hieroglyphics is actually a vaguely phonetic script, that isn't meant to be interpreted literally unless a specific symbol is attached (a star here, a vertical stroke in teal hieroglyphics). So you get "there is a gulf of difference between copying..."; from "there*, see, one*, golf, ', deaf, France, cop, ING logo (I cheated a bit)"

This leads to autistic people to perceive neurotypical speech as overly vague, false or nonsensical, while they themselves speak in a manner that is too information dense for neurotypical people to follow in real time. (and perceived as "ineffective")

>>11117154
Hieroglyphics were not actually as bad as people assume, here is how "There is a gulf of difference between copying..." might look like if English was written in hieroglyphics. Can you figure it out?