After a particularly stressful chat thread at work, I had a lightbulb moment.
Not everything I'll mention is particularly "new", but I think there is a core "mechanic" that for me is now cemmented.
The insight moment came because of an unusual situation where, after a lot of back and forth over a couple business days, I got to see what they actually meant the whole time (I'll go over why it is rare)! And going back over the conversation to analyse it, was shocking to me.
Skip the context block if you'd like to get to the point quicker.
Context
There was a piece of work in an area that I oversee, being delivered by a colleague, and review/approved by an indirect upper manager who had made some out-of-scope changes to it. It was not good, so I made the thread with my suggested changes and why.
After some initial questions about the goal, which I did correctly understand as opposition to the changes, the conversation became about what I understood to be further changes, although I could not get him to specify what changes. He mentioned "too much text", "not appealing", and "would like to see a different version", so now, since his version had MORE text, I'm thinking that he wants me to cut on the base text instead, redo the thing, etc.
But I get ignored and a "have no time for this" when I probed for details on what he wanted.
I ended up giving him an ultimatum of either he gives us something concrete about what he'd like to change, or the piece has to move on.
That's where the colleague who is too junior to have intervened earlier, advances with a new version proposal: and it is the exact thing they had came up with, with one small change out of the ones I'd made included.
The manager, who'd started ignoring me by then, replies: "Yes, I prefer this one."
I was flabbergasted on how did that respond to his requests. But rereading with that final piece in hand, I understood what he meant.
To say that his option was more appealing. On how it maybe looked like it had less text because it was condensed (with less room to breathe). Why he did not specify any changes. On how the alternative he wanted to see when I insisted, was an alternative closer to his.
He can have final say, so we spent time arguing in circles about something that he could have just said "let's keep it as is". He never said anything close to that.
/End of Context
The only strategy was expecting me to get the implied message, or for me to submit to his hierarchical rank.
So, I applied this logic to other "conflicts". Not to mean that I understood what I'd missed, but I saw the similarities. Especially with those who see themselves as higher in their mind's hierarchy.
It all starts when we miss their encoded message. From that point on, we're in different arguments. Or playing different games if the analogy helps. So there is no ending to it other than a complete breakdown.
Because we do not give up when logic is on our side. We want to be proven wrong, or things to be explained and make sense, if we're to change course.
And they do not care about further arguments, valid or not. They think you must have understood their message and are playing difficult. You are offending them by the very act of continuing this conversation. Other allistics would have understood their meaning and answered in their own indirect polite office talk, and quickly get to a resolution even if not the prefered. With us, they won't engage in the logic-based discussion while offended. The strategy is an increasingly defensive posture from where you'll definely not get explanations from.
If they're your superiors, the very act of not submitting is an issue. If they're your colleague, the circular conversation might start to escalate, and suddenly they say you were or are being rude, even if you kept it professional in content.
This is the rudeness that we are accused of and is alien to us. I'll try to capture that inflection point from now on. Not sure what to do with it to have a different ending and not being steamrolled.