Who is right?
Autistic people's perception of the world is based on a different logic. They may attach a significance that is often much less related to context and doesn’t take account of connections between matters to the same extent. This different approach to logic is not wrong – it’s just different. People who don’t suffer from autism are in the majority and have a tendency to consider their logic as the norm, ‘the truth’, and consequently tend to maintain that the autistic person's reasoning is ‘at fault’. Obviously, this can lead to endless discussions, during which the person without autism eventually declares, somewhat desperately ‘Yes, you’re right, but…’. Indeed, on the basis of their logic a person with autism is right. Ultimately the aim is not to perpetuate the argument but rather to explain briefly that both parties have a different approach, leading to a different vision, and that both are right in the end. How can you clarify this and put it into practice?
Why not try this: take a sheet of red an a sheet of green paper. Put them reatly on top of one another and laminate them together. Sit down facing each other and place the sheet vertically between the two partners. One person will be facing the red side, the other the green side. Ask what colour the sheet is. Now state your ‘truth’. Rotate the sheet and ask the same question.
It will now become clera that there are different approaches and that both are right to some extent, but that reality is actually even more complex.