--- date: 2026-04-27 title: vibes calculus subtitle: there is no polite way to compare someone to a whale. preview_image: tags: - language - neurospicy - masking permalink: /blog/30/ --- once as a kid i gave a girl a compliment like 'you are as graceful as a whale' and someone else found out, and when we were out of earshot they said to me, "nycki, there is no polite way to compare someone to a whale. it doesn't matter that you said 'graceful', people's first association with whales is 'fat'." i think this might be an autism thing? the strong autistic desire to use words to mean what they literally say in the dictionary, instead of considering what mental images people will get? when i say 'whale', people have all these other ideas that flood their head, *before* they process what i am, like, *literally saying.* and if i discount this effect because it's inconvenient to me, then i am the one who is a fool. --- i had a very illuminating conversation with a job coach today from my local Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, which is a free service for disabled people to get interview rehearsals and resume feedback. the conversation went on for 20 minutes but here's the executive summary: > \ I've noticed that I process things better when I write them down. I should ask for that in interviews even more than I've been doing already. > \ Wait, do you ask for that sort of thing a lot? > \ ...yeah, why? > \ Well, even though it's a reasonable accommodation, and you are entitled to it... it does change how the interviewer thinks of you. > \ ...it... harshes the vibe? > \ In a way, yes. It's not fair, but it's the truth. Even if they're not "supposed to", people may judge you for halting the meeting. > \ So I should try to balance asking for more time because I can give a better answer, versus not doing that because it harshes the vibe. A sort of vibes calculus. > \ That's a good way to put it. --- i have the (autistic?) desire to give the best possible answer to any interview question. so i pretty much always ask for more thinking time, or i ask them to pause while i take a note, so i can give a better answer, right? the new insight here is that *asking for thinking time has side effects*. it has a positive effect because i get to give a more thoughtful answer, but it has a negative effect because people don't like having to wait. depending on the question and the amount of time i ask for, the "net effect" can work out positive or negative. the **vibes calculus** is when i want to balance my 'amount of correctness' with the *other person's comfort level.* this means that if someone is sharing a story with me and i miss a detail, like the name of their dog, i don't need to interrupt and stop everything so i can have that information repeated. i can wait and see if they say it a second time. it might never come up again and i'll have a gap in my knowledge, but if i'm optimizing for 'hearing a fun story', then it's in my own interest to live with that gap, at least until the story is over. the frustrating thing about also having ADHD is that sometimes if i don't ask a question *immediately* i'll lose my chance. i'll forget what i was going to ask, and so i never fill in that gap, and i just have to live with a hole in my memory forever. it sucks! but if i stop people every time to repeat stuff, then it might make them think i'm difficult to talk to, and then i miss out on future stories entirely. the naive solution to this is to write down my questions for later. when i was in grade school this is what everyone told me to do, constantly. "please hold your question for the end of the class". but the thing is that while i'm writing down my question, *the teacher is still talking* and so i'm missing even *more* stuff; the memory hole gets bigger. there really is no solution other than to halt everything, or to live with some amount of knowledge gap. my current compromise is to summarize the gap as quickly as possible, like "dog(?)", so that I can *maybe* remember the question later, with the minimal amount of interruption. balancing my own needs with the speaker's needs so that it works out to a net positive, *most* of the time. vibes calculus is a lot harder when i'm the one speaking. think of it like i'm a chess computer: i want to make the best move, but i also have limited thinking power and limited thinking time. so i should optimize not for "the best possible move" but rather for "a pretty good move, compared to a tiny slice of all possible moves." how long should i think? how many outcomes are worth considering? i can improve my score here by having a few stories 'rehearsed' in advance and telling whichever story comes the closest to what the interviewer asked. it won't be the best possible answer, but it will be better *vibes* than if i made them wait for 2-5 minutes while i think of a better one. --- i think to some people, this feels really unfair and like you're being asked to violate some sacred principle of Correctness. and i agree: being imperfect, being "wrong on purpose", feels just as bad as lying. interviewers should not, ethically, ask me to do this! but also: if i refuse to practice this skill, then it puts me at a disadvantage in basically every social interaction in my life. there's a difference between being meticulous *on purpose*, versus doing it because you have *no other strategy.* diversify your moveset. play the vibes.