I can’t imagine dedicating this much time analyzing whether or not I can acknowledge when I’m wrong. It’s almost like this entire piece is an elaborate rationalization the author is making rather than admitting they are wrong.
> In this particular situation, the discussion never got past the first question. Is our checkout page not performing well?
> However, the manager interpreted my words as outright rejecting their idea.
If this is what actually happened, the manager is terrible and unprofessional. I feel I run into situations like this as well, where I ask a simple question and because the person asking is treating me like an NPC in a game they're playing but not telling me, I don't get the question answered and furthermore I get something attributed to me (e.g. refusal, uncooperativeness, etc.) that isn't true at all.
I wish there was some way to easily communicate universally that "I mean the literal meaning of these words, nothing more, nothing less."
And a fundamental requirement to admit to being wrong is, well, actually being wrong. If you analyze a situation and find that you're factually correct, you haven't failed to admit to being wrong.
Ah, but here's the thing: if your interlocutor has some motive other than truth-seeking then they will demand you admit error regardless of whether you are actually in error. This means to them you can fail to admit error even when no error occurred.
It's circumstances like this that the author is analyzing by taking "I was right" as a hypothesis - the article doesn't claim this is always the case but wants to make some particular conclusions about cases where no error was made.
I wonder if Author is in fact autistic. It seems (not sure if I've got this right) that author wasn't diagnosed until his forties. I'd have expected a diagnosis of autism to occur pre-teen.
As a relatively famous example, take Bill Gross, aka the "Bond King". He only realized he had Asperger's in his seventies when it was randomly the topic of a psychiatrist he was having dinner with. And why would he seek out some kind of diagnosis? He's happily married and running fantastically successful bond funds.
It's been suggested to me that I might have Asperger's (I believe the suggestion was hostile; it was my ex-wife, who is a trained psychotherapist). If I have Asperger's, it's only in the sense that everyone has a little bit of Asperger's. But I worried about it for several years. Vague psychological diagnoses are harmful.
I feel like the author might lie somewhere on the spectrum but I was pretty sure being actually autistic was a separate and vastly more serious diagnosis.
How could one tell how common undiagnosed autism is? All you can do, surely, is divide the number of autism diagnoses by the number of - autism diagnoses.
OK, so you can presume that an autism diagnosis represents some undiagnosed history of autism. But that's presumption. Or I suppose you can make other presumptions - like, this guy's diagnosed autistic, and he functions well; so many other people who function well are probably also autistic. But that's also presumption.
The DSM diagnostic criteria for autism look pretty shaky to me. I'm not saying I don't think autism exists; I think it does exist. But if you want to chuck around statistics about autism, then you have to stick to some strict definition. "Undiagnosed autism" isn't strict, on any criteria. The DSM doesn't define undiagnosed anything.
[Edit] I'm not at all surprised that some people are diagnosed in their middle age; 40 years ago, autism was a pretty exotic diagnosis, few doctors knew much about it or were experienced with it.
If you discover your self-perception is wrong, the next step might be thinking about how you can change your behavior and clarify your own judgement. If you determine that others misperceive you, the next step might be thinking about how to change that.
The author didn't get far into a next step, but the first step is critical and valuable as far as it goes, IMO.