Life and Relationships in the Spectrum

Often Bovine Scatology (BS) gets in the way of good information for personal and commercial business transactions. This is particularly significant where the personal interaction is helpful or influential in the decision making process.

This was written with personal business transactions in mind but is equally applicable to relationships.

BS can be a problem for people on The Spectrum because people on The Spectrum are often more trusting. Fortunately, some forms of BS require NT (neurotypical) understanding for the BS to be effective.

The Purpose of this Page

People on "the Spectrum" have difficulty in understanding the nuances of daily negotiated transactions. This is particularly a problem with trivial negotiations which we encounter in daily life. The problem is that, without a rulebook or HOWTO, it's difficult to learn how to do it right, and difficult to avoid confrontation. The purpose is to expand knowledge on one aspect, recognizing BS. More on negotiated transactions at exercises.html.

Indications of BS

A question or statement generates a non-responsive reply.

This is a strong indication something is wrong. Fortunately this makes a good test for identifying BS. Particularly if there is an extended interaction, the potential for this exists. Then it is simply a matter of determining if the non-responsive reply is:

intentional or inadvertant

the non-responsive reply is culture

It's still deceptive, but the purpose may be to follow the norm and not to deliberately deceive. Be especially polite when responding. (e.g., "Yes, but that wasn't my question.") After all, their decision (or non-decision) was to follow a norm. In some places and circumstances, a non-evasive answer is considered too abrupt to the extent of the direct answer being impolite.

is a mere misuse of words

This can be intentional or unintentional. One example is at bs_stories.html .

the non-responsive reply is relevant to the transaction

It may be that the reply is insignificant. "Insignificant" means not an indication that the non-responsive reply is representative of what the person is going to tell you about important aspects of the transaction. (For example, a person may exaggerate in fishing stories but be perfectly straightforward in business.)

Intentional but not malicious

If someone asks, "Do I look fat in this?" an almost-direct answer would be, "Well, if you have to ask...". This would offend most people who considered their weight to be a personal issue.

A more appropriate answer would be non-responsive. "That outfit flatters you." (If you feel uncomfortable giving a non-responsive answer, you could simply state, "I feel uncomfortable answering that sort of question." or That outfit flatters you, but please don't ask me that sort of question because it makes me uncomfortable.)

Partially supported claims

A related BS tactic is name dropping. Citing a credible authority may make sense sometimes, but in other instances the authority is either irrelevant or is unverifiable. (I think most people on The Spectrum are unaffected by this. Most of us tend to be puzzled by the irrelevance of name dropping.)

Verbal claims totally unsupported by documentation

If a product has a label, it's there for a reason.

It requires a "conspiracy theory" for the explanation to work

False presumption/Presumed understanding

"Of course you know..." This is more of a method of intimidation than direct deception; the deception being the person is mislead that this is someone they should know. People on The Spectrum, once aware this is being done, will generally either say, "I don't understand," or will happen to know enough to indicate what parts of the statement they don't understand.

Requires impractical conditions to be met for the promise to come true.

Includes a request that the person making the request knows will not be met.

Example: "Please ask your employer to change their medical/dental plan." (link describing curious scam engaged in by some medical professionals)

"Smoke and Mirrors" Alternatives

This is common in politics; occasionally elsewhere. - A glamorous-sounding alternative is announced as "close to being achieved" and will almost-magically solve the problems addressed by the issue at hand.

Compare:

1. We don't need fuel efficiency standards because we're developing hydrogen fuel cell technology.

with

2. We are expect there will be meaningful fuel efficiency standards. We are developing new technology and need more Government support for our research.

The first is an attempt to divert attempts to address an issue with implied promises of "things to come". The second is a sincere attempt to request help as a quid pro quo for the regulation.

Recognize attempts to obfuscate an issue with vague promises.

Innuendo

Innuendo requires that the person told the statement make conclusions based on facts which were not stated but only implied. If the implied facts can't be stated, there's a reason.

Business "recommendations" for or against other businesses

This is difficult to discern from personal recommendations shared by people in the business. If the recommendation is the opinion of the business, then there's a business reason. This could be something as complex as a marketing arrangement or as simple as a kickback (payment from one merchant to another for obtaining a customer).

In a personal recommendation, an individual is rendering a personal opinion, but since recommendations are often presented as personal recommendations, it's sometimes difficult to distinguish the two. Some clues:

The recommendation is institutionalized or stated by someone who doesn't seem to have personal knowledge concerning the recommendation.

The recommendation includes innuendo.

There's an undisclosed business relationship between the recommending business and the business recommended.

The recommendation includes time pressure which seems to be artificial.

There are cases where business recommendations are beneficial and should not be considered BS.

This is because the business recommendation is legitimately for the benefit of the person making the recommendation. This is most common with personal service contracts, where one business is used to working with another business. Usually this relationship is clearly set forth. Similarly, the business interest of the referring party may be expedited service or some other business function which benefits both the referring business and the customer. There are also cases in which the referring business has better knowledge as to which referred businesses are best able to handle a particular transaction.

A similar case exists where the referral is generally requested of the business. This is common, for example, with referrals for delivery services.

A penalty for not immediately purchasing (typically with "add-on" items such as dealer-sold "extended warranties")

If there's a penalty, decline the offer. On the average, a penalty for delay means that you'll find a better purchase elsewhere. The penalty for delay generally means that the business would prefer you not think about the decision, even though the penalty means you won't make the purchase later.

One sales scam is to describe the delay as some sort of fee. i.e., more BS. (If you don't like their rules at the time of purchase, you won't like their rules later!)

Priceless items - deliberately leaving out critical information (eg., price), based on the target being too embarrassed to ask.

The ploy includes positioning the patron where it is necessary to object, often in circumstances where it is impolite to do so. More at exercises.html .

Ambiguous statements - the statement has no real meaning.

Usually these are low-keyed comments, such as

"I hope to..."
"It will be right out."

An easy way to respond without challenging the person is to acknowledge the ambiguity:

"I never know what that means."

Note that in most of these cases, it's possible to resolve the issue by simply thinking out the issue in advance or if not, before making a decision. It's generally not possible to resolve these issues "on the spot" if you hadn't heard something similar before.

Key to "Spin"

An almost certain indication of BS is if a published statement addresses a bogus issue, but completely ignores the real issues. Examples:

Chemical food safety of plastics - the "Dioxin" Issue.

"Dioxin" is a bogus issue and has no relevance to food containers. Chemical food safety relates to the extent to which plasticizers leach out of plastic containers, for example in a microwave oven. This of course has nothing to do with dioxins. The plastics industry addresses the "Dioxin Issue" but fails to address the issues of several plasticizers released when using plastics in microwave cooking. Dioxin is a bogus issue which is easily refuted.

Sadly, the US Food and Drug Administration has joined the bandwagon of addressing the "Dioxin Issue".

Fluff and Illusory Quality

Low Quality Products Sold as High Quality

While most products are promoted as high quality, there are some instances where an inferior product masquarades as better quality. If it's the same or better, then the components will be the same or better. That's easy to identify in foodstuffs because of ingredient listings.

Low Quality Goods used for Fundraisers

Typically these are foods and similar items sold as part of a fundraising campaign. The idea is that one would not mind paying a premium price for quality goods, especially if the proceeds help some cause. Presumably the fundraisers have selected high quality items for the purpose.

It seems as often as not, the goods are of extremely low quality. This suggests that whomever is making the commercial arrangements really doesn't care. I figure if they don't care, neither should I.

The people selecting the product are showing contempt, or at best disregard for their contributors.

If "fundraiser" food items are offered, look at the ingredients. If there are no ingredients, there's a reason. I figure that I wouldn't buy such a product in a store, so why would I pay a premium for the privilege?

If asked, I say, "I couldn't find the ingredients," or just say outright, "I was disappointed in the quality. If I'm being asked to donate money, I expect that someone in the organization would take least the care in selection of the product that I would take when buying for my own family/for myself." Usually, it's just, "I tried, but couldn't find something I liked."

If the group or organization is expecting people to pay a premium price, they should have enough respect for their contributors to provide sufficient quality to make the premium price nominally worth it.

Automotive Parts

Auto parts designations sound like BS, but often are not. Auto parts are classified as:

OE (original equipment)

- sold by the car maker, with their logo.

OEM (original equipment manufacturer)

- the people who actually make the part and supply it to the manufacturer. Some parts have multiple OEMs. It's what came with the car (or others like it).

Replacement

- not what came with the car, but designed to fit. Some are good quality; others not. (Some "replacement" parts are referred to as "OEM" because the parts are high quality and used on similar vehicles.)

Aftermarket

This sometimes references Replacement parts which are in some way made better than original. Examples would be Silla radiators, or performance parts. If you're not looking for something different, there would be no advantage to purchasing "Aftermarket parts".

I listed this here because of the difficulty in understanding what one is purchasing in repair parts. "Warranty" is generally meaningless in automotive parts.

The "Time Share" Test

A "time share condonimium " is a type of real estate purchase, which often involves costs and assumptions which are unreasonable, resulting in negative equity value. There are a few instances where the purchasor finds value, but those instances are exceedingly rare.

If the financial arrangement involves too many contingencies, then the arrangement will only be beneficial if all or most of the contingencies are met. If an arrangement seems to be as problematic as a time share, it's probably best to avoid it.

Examples

These examples get pretty wordy, so they are hyperlinked here. The examples are at www.scn.org/people/autistics/bs_stories.html .

Recognize answers which "contradict" the question, or which are "non-responsive" in general.

If an answer doesn't have a direct correspondance to the question, be ready to say so. Examples:

• "Yes, but that wasn't my question."
• "Yes, but [repeat question]. That is what I really want to know."
• "Oh, I'm afraid you misunderstood my question. (More likely the person pretended to misunderstand.) Do you understand what I asked?
• "I understand, but that's my question."
• "Yes, but that has nothing to do with my question."

All-in-all, it's a fairly easy thing in some cases to make this kind of "Is it responsive?" analysis.

This type of "Is it responsive?" analysis can also be used to confirm dishonest business dealings with sales people, agents, etc. If you receive a non-responsive answer, 1) confirm that the non-responsiveness was intentional, and 2) determine whether to terminate dealing with that person.

Request that the issue be addressed first, before irrelevancies. ("...because otherwise it gets confusing.")

"Cut and paste" quoting.

This is mostly for text communications, where non-responsive answers can be particularly exasperating. If the question doesn't get answered a first time, cut and paste the same question.

Make it difficult to "ignore" the issues

This also usually applies to a second written communication. Write it with the idea that someone doing a very quick review would immediately notice if the issue is ignored a second time around. Perhaps a very brief, but polite preface, such as "(same question...)".

Refer to their notes.

If you have any sort of account that the person is looking up, there are likely to be notes. Since they are obviously looking at that, don't be reluctant to say something like, "Please look at your notes. You'll see that..."

Don't forget that the person on the other end of the line (the inbound telemarketer) is a human being doing a difficult job.

They are often used by their employers to make excuses for poor service or illegal or unethical policies. They are the ones that hear from irate customers.

Nevertheless, if they are supporting something that is unethical or otherwise unacceptable, don't be afraid to politely voice your objections. The business cannot act illegally without the assistance and consent of its employees.

Panhandlers

Generally, a good, well thought-out story is a dead giveaway of total BS. The better the story, the more likely it's BS.

Don't make excuses as to why you won't pay out. The easiest way to say, "No" is "No".

But if you wish to comment:

"I'd like to, but every time I give money to one of you guys, I feel used and taken advantage of."

"Sorry, I don't have any work for you."

"Oh, now you're laughing at me for suggesting 'work'!"

"That's a very convincing story. It's better than the version you told me two months ago."

"You mean you'd take a quarter and buy food, when I could spend it on a good cheap bottle of wine?"

"Bus fare.. You're in a train station. If you find a bus down here, you don't want to go on it."

(Panhandlers in some cities will sometimes slip into train stations, but know that people are more likely to give them money for bus transportation, which is cheaper.)

"You know, if you saved a LOT of money, and bought a ___ing shoe shine kit, you'd make a killing here."

That said, I have nothing against giving homeless people food. These are people who generally do not have a scam, and are fairly easy to identify.

---

Other Pages at This Site

exercises.html - Exercises for Negotiated Interactions and Social Interactions

bs_stories.html - examples of encounters with BS in a commercial environment

relationships.html - Autism, Dating and Socialization

index.html - the index page www.scn.org/people/autistics/index.html

singles.html - Autism and 'Singles' Dating Sites

abuse.html - Partner Abuse as Pertains to People on the Autism Spectrum

faqs.html - FAQs about editorial content of the relationships pages only

www.scn.org/help/monitor.html - Reducing Computer Display Monitor Flicker

---

---

Seattle Community Network
SCN People Pages

Comments about this site: email me

This site first posted August 8, 2002; rev December 25, 2007 ~~ written in WordPerfect 5.1 and works best with ~~ copyright 2002 by Stan P.