> Does a person really have to be "better" than you to act as some sort of authority in a particular context?

No. And you're correct, IMO, that people can swap into roles without being jerks about it. And I don't think many Autistic folks have a problem with those kinds of people.

But there are also those who gravitate to positions of power and authority just for the power and authority. They're the ones who will say "I won't respect you until you respect me," and mean "I won't treat you like a human until you treat me as an authority (as your better)."

And if you haven't run into that kind yet... good. May you be lucky enough to never run into them.

    But there are also those who gravitate to positions 
    of power and authority just for the power and authority. 
    They're the ones who will say "I won't respect you 
    until you respect me," and mean "I won't treat you like a 
    human until you treat me as an authority (as your better)."

    And if you haven't run into that kind yet... good. May 
    you be lucky enough to never run into them. 

No argument here, and you said it very well. The world's crawling with these creeps.

But bringing things back to the points made in the linked article, I haven't seen a compelling case made for how the recognition of such creeps is a specifically autistic trait, or how "blind" subservience to them is a neurotypical trait.

>people can swap into roles without being jerks about it. And I don't think many Autistic folks have a problem with those kinds of people

Oh ho ho that's not always true. I've witnessed a usually normal-ish appearing autistic spectrum acquaintance flip out on a poor service worker over very little. He had his preconceived notion of how a service was going to proceed and let everyone know loudly when it didn't meet his expectations.

I think you're looking at it backwards. The problem is people with authority who think that it makes them better than you. The autistic person rejects that idea completely.

You seem to be arguing that autistic people also reject the idea that some people have authority because they are better than you in some context. This isn't the case.

At the airport, the staff has authority because they are following a higher ethical directive to protect everyone. The pilot has authority because they're responsible for dozens or hundreds of lives. The pilot is more important than you, they are a better person in this context, and thus have authority.

As a counterpoint, America is having a crisis about the authority of the police. People are rejecting the authority of the police because they assume authority makes them better, and therefore entitles them to whatever they want. Whereas police who do follow the directive to protect everyone tend to be respected and have authority because of that.

I think that most neurotypical people also reject the idea that authority makes you better. But they tend to play along with it, for some reason. The discussion here is about the autistic people who don't play along and just flatly reject the idea.

To answer your question, these types of autistic people tend to have a very strong idea of right and wrong and a rich code of ethics. Something wrong shouldn't be tolerated and should be set right. But I think most people in general feel that way.

Where autism comes into play is that an autistic person's notion of what is intolerable is often quite different. An autistic person is also more likely to lack or not care about the social inhibition against challenging or rejecting something that they feel is wrong.

Certainly, people on power trips are odious and we should all reject that behavior. Let's set that aside because I think it's uncontroversial and we all agree.

    The problem is people with authority who think 
    that it makes them better than you.

To summarize: we've got people who (by definition) have a hard time understanding the motives of others, and they have made some pretty assertive decisions about the motives of those in authority ("they must think they're better than me!") and have decided that they don't like those motives that they, the people who are bad at ascribing others' motives, have ascribed to others.

That is not great or accurate thinking in my opinion. I'm saying this as somebody likely on the spectrum to some extent himself, for whatever that's worth.

    I think that most neurotypical people also reject the 
    idea that authority makes you better. But they tend to 
    play along with it, for some reason.

I don't think this "some reason" should be very mysterious. What are some of the defining traits of autism? A lack of awareness/valuation of social intangibles such as peer or societal pressure. Another typical one is a discomfort with change from one's desired routines. Another typical one is sensory overload. Three common things off the top of my head that can make it tough to jive with authority.

Neurotypicals therefore don't typically have these barriers to successful interactions with authority. I realize that this is difficult or even impossible for those on the spectrum to intuit, but when seemingly intelligent people on the spectrum who seem very well versed on how autism relates to neurotypicalism declare this to be some super mystery, and proclaim that neurotypicals seemingly just looooooooove themselves some authority, my eyes roll so hard that I'm afraid they're about to fall out of my skull. It's insulting, and just incorrect, and just not very good thinking. And again, I'm not even particularly neurotypical myself.

    Where autism comes into play is that an autistic person's 
    notion of what is intolerable is often quite different. An 
    autistic person is also more likely to lack or not care about 
    the social inhibition against challenging or rejecting something 
    that they feel is wrong. 

I think you nailed this, hard. More succinctly than me, and certainly better than the linked author. Amen.

The problem is when authority figures act like they're better than you. This is colloquially referred to as a "power trip". The effects of this can range from annoying (some assistant manager at a store on a power trip) to potentially life-changing or life-ending (a cop on a power trip).

That’s certainly a problem and it happens a lot. Everybody hates that. It’s not an autism thing.

Imagine the gate agent has called Zone 1 and Zone 2 who are almost finished processing. You, looking at your Zone 3 ticket, start queuing but the gate agent asks you to go back to your seat as your zone has not been called. Do you defer to their authority on principle or trust your own expertise? I think the logical endpoint is rules and obedience are evaluated in context rather than with an authority bias heuristic.

I'm not exactly sure what process you are referring to, but if you are explicitly asked to leave a queue by some sort of administrator, what could you possibly gain from staying in it? If they do not want you to queue for whatever reason, they are hardly likely to serve you if you do stay in the queue.

It's hard to answer based on this example.

    Imagine the gate agent has called Zone 1 and Zone 2 
    who are almost finished processing. You, looking at 
    your Zone 3 ticket, start queuing but the gate agent 
    asks you to go back to your seat as your zone has not 
    been called. Do you defer to their authority on principle 
    or trust your own expertise? 

In your example, the Zone 3 protagonist hasn't actually decided that his boarding process is "better." It sounds like he is just disobeying rules (or maybe made an unintentional mistake) and no reason is given. So taking this purely at face value, Mr. Zone 3 should go back to his seat rather than causing an argument and delaying the boarding process for himself and all of the other customers.

Let's make some additional assumptions based on what seems to be your intent. Let's assume that Mr. Zone 3 has expertise in this area, and has decided that he knows a better way to board the plane. (This might be true! Airlines are experimenting with this stuff all of the time. I don't think the "best" way to board is a rigorously settled matter...)

However, in that case, Mr. Zone 3 is still wrong and should STFU and sit back down.

He might be the world's premier expert in plane boarding, but his superior method is not going to realize any gains if one rogue passenger attempts to implement this new procedure in the god damn middle of boarding. Certainly, the premier expert in plane boarding should realize this. And the gate agent is not in a position to make changes, even if he shows up to the gate early and Mr. Zone 3 makes a really great case ahead of time.

There are zero short-term scenarios in which Mr. Zone 3 is going to get this plane loaded any more quickly relative to the (in his view) suboptimal routine already in place.

He should get some kind of job working for or advising airlines if this is truly a passion project for him.

Also, in reality....

I've seem people honestly make this mistake and have made it myself. Because the boarding agent has no idea what zone you're in until you actually reach the front of the line they are not going to notice or even give a shit that you're boarding at the wrong moment. They will do their own calculus if they do notice and will surely just let you board anyway because sending you away (and risking an argument) is not going to get the plane loaded more quickly and will almost certainly slow things down. They just want the plane loaded, and their day to go smoothly, and not have to deal with complaints and look bad to their boss.

    I think the logical endpoint is rules and obedience 
    are evaluated in context rather than with an authority 
    bias heuristic.

Sorry to semi-humorously pick on your example. I know it was just an example.

To your actual point I often have violated rules that I felt were simply dumb or shouldn't apply to me, when I felt that there was no downside to doing so for myself or others.

But:

1. That's not an autism-specific thing, by a longshot.

2. I didn't get the impression the linked author was talking about the sort of nuanced decision-making you describe. The linked article was a way dumber, less correct, and more harmful assertion that NeuROtYPicaLS LoooOOOOveeeEEe AUthorITY and that those on the spectrum just can't handle authority ever and can't be expected to, maaaaaaaaan. The author hedges his bet by saying those on the spectrum can't handle "blind" authority, but never defines what it means, and it seems to just include all authority more or less.

> What's the logical endpoint of "nobody is better than me" or "nobody is better than anybody?" Just like, no rules whatsoever for anybody, unless you explicitly opt-in to some specific rule or authority figure you happen to like?

Negotiation as equals and on the merits of the matter at hand. For example, rather than a senior colleague telling a junior colleague to do something "because I say so", the expectation would be that they actually provide justification for their decision, and to persuade you rather than simply overrule there is disagreement. Ditto for a parent, teacher or other authority figure.

And that where there is unresolvable disagreement (and one persons decision has to be followed despite lack of consensus), that there is accountability around that decision, and that the results of it are taken into account when resolving future disputes. In other words, authority is earned not decreed.

    rather than a senior colleague telling a junior 
    colleague to do something "because I say so"

Sure. Agree 1,000% in this specific example.

There are a lot of other contexts where it seems wildly impractical.

Should Linus have explain to you and negotiate your right to be (or not) a Linux kernel committer? Should a crossing guard at an intersection negotiate with every car?

Should an air traffic controller negotiate and explain with every given aircraft? Okay, maybe we could treat the role of ATC as an education issue during pilot training and certification, so nobody has to "blindly" obey. But what if I don't want to obey even in an informed way? What if I think the certification process sucks? Why submit to the FAA's authority in the first place? They don't own the sky!

Ideally, we should all have individualized speed limits on roadways, too, based on our skill, the weather conditions, and the vehicle we're driving at the moment. And yet we recognize that this is just sort of impractical.

There are a lot of issues with negotiation that get awfully intractable if we scale them up past much more than two people.

Do we recognize that as impractical? The Autobahn seems to work fine on that model.

You will perhaps be surprised to know that there is a speed limit on the autobahn.

There is a minimum speed limit and a strict set of laws governing your driving behavior.

So no, you don’t get to pick your own specially negotiated arbitrary driving speed or negotiate your own special individual set of driving laws.

German driving requirements (exams, licensing, etc) are said to be quite strict as well relative to many other countries and again, I am not aware of any part of this process where you are permitted to set your own personalized driving laws (but only if you have deemed your assigned personalized negotiator to be worthy of that authority)

In short, a spectacularly poor choice of example (on multiple axes) to illustrate your point.

If it’s any consolation this is a common mistake. I suspect people in Germany are often amused and baffled by others’ tendency to point to the Autobahn as some sort of lassiez-faire libertarian “do whatever you want” zone.

This is a very reasonable default way of operating, and the effort that goes into helping those you're leading understand and build agreement with the path we're taking together is IMO one of the key traits of a good leader - but anyone who has been in a leadership role for a long time will probably have had an interaction with a colleague where someone they're leading either lacks so much of the bigger picture that the nuances can't possibly all be explained in sufficient detail right now, or for situations involving personnel perhaps aren't allowed to be explained, and the answer in those situations will sometimes be "I need you to trust me even though you don't feel like you fully understand or fully agree".

Hopefully those situations are extremely few and far between. But some of the hardest conversations any leader will have, especially when the default _is_ to keep discussing until everything is mutually transparent and understood, are going to be on this theme. I've had some colleagues handle that handle that situation well, and others for whom it has been a real challenge and sets the relationship back.

That's very well said. Thank you. I agree so much.

    But some of the hardest conversations any 
    leader will have, especially when the default 
    _is_ to keep discussing until everything is 
    mutually transparent and understood, are 
    going to be on this theme.

Yeah. And ultimately, it's just a maturity and practicality issue, quite honestly. It is not practical for 100% of team members to be in 100% agreement 100% of the time. And even the most egalitarian manager can't necessarily explain 100% of the reasoning behind 100% of decisions to 100% of the team members 100% of the time. And hopefully each individual team member will realize they are not correct 100% of the time either. Even if those are the ideals to which we aspire.

There are times when we should dig in and defend our decisions to the death (hopefully, figuratively speaking!) but these battles should be chosen and fought carefully and not reflexively.

I think most people generally understand this, most of the time. Spectrum or otherwise.

Which is why I find the linked article so misguided and even insulting. The notion that those on the spectrum are hardwired to be incompatible with authority and everybody else just needs to accept this is just so wrong.

> Does a person really have to be "better" than you to act as some sort of authority in a particular context?

There's a good likelihood that an authority figure _does_ see themselves as better than subordinates, yes.

> no rules whatsoever for anybody, unless you explicitly opt-in to some specific rule or authority figure you happen to like?

This is a Sovcit scenario, one I specifically avoided.

   There's a good likelihood that an authority 
   figure _does_ see themselves as better than 
   subordinates, yes.

I always knew the ticket-taker at the movie theater was looking down his nose at me.

> How about the gate agent at the airport, who boards and deboards people from the plane?

I've seen law enforcement used as an example of Authority a couple times, but I'm not convinced the author has any idea what they're talking about (yes, I am dismissing his authority as an expert).

To him, "Authority" seems to mean social status-- i.e. how do you react when you meet a celebrity or billionaire CEO at the supermarket. These people aren't better than you because they're older than you, famous or have money. Despite everyone else bowing to them, that isn't Authority. Those people who value such traits are simply fools.

Autistic people aren't retarded. Airport personnel and law enforcement have leverage over you-- if not the risk of getting shot, maced or tased, they are what stands in your way of getting to your flight on time. You will respect their authority or you will miss your flight and/or suffer pain and inconvenience.

The autistic are perfectly capable of reasoning their way through this while simultaneously recognizing that the airport cop is Just Some Guy. Whether you recognize him as an agent of the state is irrelevant; right now, he's just an obstacle in your path that compliance happens to be the simplest path around.

Someone with antisocial personality disorder may decide that confrontation for the sake of belligerence is worth it though.

> Autistic students (and I speak from long experience) will not bow to authority for authority’s sake. [...] They will respect it, if respect can be had, and they’ll do what they’re told— if it makes sense; but they won’t blindly accept authority.

This is literally the exact same advice you find in the opening pages of any book about Huskies.

They are a pain in the ass to train because they don't respect human authority, but the most you can hope for is fostering a mutually-beneficial relationship where they'll stick around and do what you say for as long as you make it worth their while. When you stop paying them in treats, they chew up your furniture and run away. They don't give a shit about you.

We don't just call dogs autistic, declare them unreasonable and let them have the house while we live under the porch. Somehow they still serve as cooperative work animals despite their independence. Somehow they can still be trained to be useful to us.

    Autistic people aren't retarded. Airport personnel and 
    law enforcement have leverage over you-- if not the risk 
    of getting shot, maced or tased, they are what stands 
    in your way of getting to your flight on time. You 
    will respect their authority or you will miss your 
    flight and/or suffer pain and inconvenience.

    The autistic are perfectly capable of reasoning their way 
    through this while simultaneously recognizing that the 
    airport cop is Just Some Guy.

Absolutely. The linked article, while clearly wanting to be some kind of rallying cry for neurodivergence, is ultimately just super insulting.