What will follow is a way I am planning to explain my social interaction difficulties to my therapist next week. I would like feedback both on the model I am introducing as well as the approach (of course, general advice is also welcome).
First some backstory to make this comprehensible: I had lifelong mental health struggles and after a crisis in the beginning of this year I started seeing a therapist for 8 months now. In may/june I got diagnosed with ASD and ADHD (depression was already diagnosed earlier) and am on meds for ADHD since early june. Overall, almost all aspects of my life improved, but with regards to social interaction just about nothing changed. The crisis I had was also around this (amongst other things), that I took steps and actually succesfully put myself in situations with a lot of potential (moved cities and transferred to a much bigger university for my masters for example) and while I had plenty of interaction, similarly, absolutely nothing changed. While I basically self-diagnosed with ASD (to myself) for the better part of a decade, this led me to believe I might have cPTSD or even AvPD because, even with ASD, I just cannot explain where I am struggling. Clearly I lack socialization (dysfunctional family) and *something*, and I don’t really know what it is, but in the end I cannot say much more than in execution, I *genuinely* do not know what to do.
Now, I have some friends and no big trouble keeping that up. I have somewhat of a social circle (basically overlapping with my special interests). But I have no idea how to “make friends”, there are just a few people were it happened and I cannot really retrace what I did specifically. Let alone romantic experience, but I see that in the very same lane as the other problems. I have talked to my therapist plenty about this, tried different ways of explaining it. But I don’t think she really gets it (or anyone really). A few sessions ago I literally said “I don’t get it, you don’t get it. Let’s just focus on something else for a few sessions”. So we looked at some other things before returning to it last session.
So one theme I used in my explanation is to differentiate between “Step 1”, by which I mean casual-type interactions I have plenty of and “Step 2” which are “established relationships” as in structured/predictable and personal/intimate to a degree. I mean platonic, romantic, family bonds. And I know I do “Step 1”, I also have some experience with “Step 2”, as in I have people that I know I crossed that boundary with. What I need help with is “Step 1.5”, how you turn a casual into a personal relationship. But every time she gave me an advice it would be “Step 1” type, like talking to people. And my response would be “I can talk to people. I do talk to people. If I know anything for certain it is that just talking to people will NOT cross that boundary”. Like I know it’s a prerequisite, but clearly I need to make some changes to actually do what I set out. This all excacervates with age, meaning natural opportunities to meet people will only restrict. At least in my mind this is also why it has become so much more of a bigger problems compared to my school years.
Now, last session I think we moved forward. Thinking about it, I noticed a big problem was that I did not differentiate interactions and relationships when talking of “Step 1 and 2”, and this brought problems because I tried to relate it to another example. I was comparing my mind in a social interaction to a highway. I know there’s multiple lanes but I can’t really change lanes a lot, miss exits etc. because I will just follow through one topic (i.e. “staying on the lane”). Of course that strenghtens if I talk about my special interests, but is a general phenomenon. Like for example if I talk to a classmate about the class in a break, that would be the “lane” I am in. And even if I thought they would make a potential friend I have trouble “steering away” from the “class lane”.
So for the next session I have taken three specific things my therapist said and tried to expand the two analogies (Steps and Highway) into a model of social interaction to explain exactly what my issues are and “where” they occur.
This is the “script” I have prepared so far to start the next session:
I want to explain my question today, which boils down to “What am I supposed to do?” The goal is not to answer that question today, but to come to a common denominator of what my issue is, in order to make it possible figuring out which direction the solution might be. I will take up 3 things you said in previous sessions, all of which I fully believe are true, but contain a caveat. Every one of those is a “yes, but…”
But first, why is this question important? 8 months ago when I first came in I told you that I cannot imagine myself turning 30 and still having these same problems. At that point that mark was 4 years away. 1/6 of these 4 years has now passed. Problems with school, with motivation and others have vastly improved. But social interaction has not. I have had plenty of interaction in these 8 months. And as I told you before a factor in my crisis was that the year prior to coming in, the same thing applied. I was social, I had interactions, yet nothing changed.
Which brings me to the first thing you said, “recognizing the depth of a relationship or interaction becomes easier with experience”. I believe that is fully true, it must be true. But if it’s supposed to get better with experience, but it did factually not get better with the experience of the past 8 months, or the year prior to that, or really my whole entire life, clearly something is going on. What is the experience that makes it easier? How do I get this experience? And we get to the question: “What am I suppoed to do?”
Which brings me to the second thing you said, “talking about feelings is a way to grow closer”. I also completely agree, talking about feelings is a prerequisite to any deeper bond, there is no other way. But what exactly are we talking about? Let’s imagine in the abastract a field that holds all possible interactions between me and another person. Somewhere in this field, probably at multiple points, there is this possibility of talking about feelings. Let’s give this type of interaction an arbitrary number, 1.75.
I think you naturally sort of bunch together 3 things under “1.75” that I would delineate. 1.75 can be a motivation, it can also be an action upon that motivation, but most importantly it is an interaction. So in this field of possible interactions, what does 1.75 signify? It means two people are talking about emotions. Sounds simple, but here’s the deal: Me having the motivation 1.75 does not mean it happens, me acting on that motivation does not mean it happens. It can only happen if two people do it. So I imagine something like this: My motivation leads to my action, their motivation leads to their action, our inter-action can be termed in the abstract “1.75”. So to put it in a sort of calculations we can say: A1(M1) + A2(M2) = 1.75. My action (A) is a “function”/variety of my motivation (M), same with the other person. If I have the motivation of talking about feelings and the other person switches topics (for example), the end result is not 1.75. I may also have another motivation and we still end up at 1.75, it is non-linear.
Why do I think this distinction is important? Because you say “try 1.75” and just mix all of that up, it might seem quite simple to do something out of that motivation. However I hear “try 1.75” and start grinding my gears, filling in the “calculation”. What I hear is “go into an interaction that ends up at 1.75” with no real knowledge in how to get there. So I fill in the “calculation” as my motivation, which leads both to an infinite regress (because it just repeats itself for every M1) and to including actions in my motivation, which are separate but also importantly include things outside my control, the actions and motivations of the other person. I get that I need to do something and that motivations cannot really be changed heavily, but it is rather a task to figure them out.
So I am thinking: I lack a certain kind of experience, I realize I need to do something, I WANT to do something, I want to figure out what’s my A1, or a possible A1. But I do not know what it is.
(This part I am not sure wether to include:) Adding to that, what does talking about feelings mean? I can see a few different avenues. But in real world application, someone might talk about something I would register being “about their feeings”, but I have no info on how personal that is to them. They might casually talk about their family, and I could intepet that as some personal talk when it’s not. That might lead to some issues but is certainly not the main problem. I am quite confident I could navigate that, at least it does not seem hopeless. But of course there’s the other sie of the equation: I need to be talking about feelings, I need to present in some way (verbally and non-verbally) what I am about, what I am open for etc. So I need to “mask”, which I think is doable, which I think can be useful in many ways. But I do not know how, so again we are at “What am I supposed to do?”
Then I come to the last thing you said, “sometimes you have to brige a gap and make a jump to change the type of relationship”. Let’s go back to the field of possible interaction an order it in a way that certain interactions are categorized in different types of relationship. These can be casual or intimate, both in various different ways. And again, this is a linear expression of something deeply unlinear, so I do not expect this to make sense as a full model of social interactions. However, what it grasps is that “bridging the gap” is something that happens within a certain relationship and leading out of it. If I am university acquaintances with someone, every possibility to change that relationship type, wether to “consistent group work partner”, “casual friend” or “romantic partner” must come out of an interaction (or a chain of interactions) happening within the category of “university acquaintance”.
Now I don’t believe neurotypical peopel have any definitive certainty of “if I do x we’re gonna end up as consistent group work partners, if I do y we’re gonna end up as casual friends and if I do z we’re gonna end up as romantic partners”. But, as far as I am able to tell, feelings give neurotypical people something like a very vague GPS. So you don’t know this “track” leads to casual friendship, but if you are moving towards that as an interaction develops, but you just want to stay acquaintances or actually have romantic interests you get something of a feeling regarding that, and do x or z as “course corrections” or attempts thereof. And of course this does not come from some innate knowledge, but from experience. The experience of knowing “if I do z that might lead to a romantic relationship”. And here I am, knowing I have “bridged the gap” with some people, at some point, but I look back and find nothing that categorically distinguishes my interactions with the people where the bridge was gapped and those where it didn’t happen. And I am interacting, quite often, with people, starting *somewhere*, moving *somewhere* for *some reason* and all I receive in “live updates” is something like “what a lovely conversation urban design”. Even if I had some clear indication of knowing I am platonically interested in someone, which is hard for me to begin with, I cannot draw the connection from “talking about urban design” to something like “talking about feelings” with the goal of “becoming friends”. Which is of course because nothing about the urban design conversation itself will give info on that, the “info” is on another plane entirely. So back to “what am I supposed to do?” And at this point I cannot even myself say what the question is referring to: is it knowing how to better identify my own motivations? Is it reading body language better? Is it masking better? Is it all of those? Is it something else? I do not even know where to begin figuring it out. But I do know having just another interaction with someone cannot help me if I don’t even know what I should be putting my attention towards, what I could be learning, where the experience arises that is supposed to help figure it out, or make it easier figuring it out (and of course, again, I don’t know what *it* is that I am supposed to figure out in the first place).
—-
This is more ornpess what I am planning to discuss, possibly over multiple sessions. I want to give one more piece of context. Right around when the diagnosis became clear my therapist recommended SSRIs (or rather to talk about it with the psychiatrist I go to for the ADHD medication) and I was asking “what experiences do you think I will have on these meds?” Because it was explained to me that what the SSRI is more or less supposed to do in my case is ease anxiety, make interactions easier and over time make me more comfortable with them. And while I did have anxiety and still do (around like 10-20% of what I had a year ago, so vastly less), I could not answer myself or get an answer from my therapist what experiences are supposed to actually ease the anxiety (I hope it is clear how this ties into the whole discussion above). I did not get on any SSRIs, but at this point I am more open to try because I grasp for something, anything, that might help. But I still think the most likely outcome would be having more interactions where I keep having no idea what I’m supposed to do. And this is not just my fantasy, as I have been on SSRIs in the past (escitalopram) where this exact thing happened and they didn’t improve my social functioning in any way, shape or form (while it may be more of a coincidence, my mental health actually decreased during the period I took it).
Now, I rambled enough. Give me your brutally honest feedback. Does any of this make even the slightest sense? Is it relatable? Have you figured out solutions to these problems? Or am I on the wrong track entirely here?