I’m Not Too Sensitive. I’m Reading the Room.
What loneliness research taught me about my family
Last Friday night, my daughter flew home from California to attend our niece’s high school graduation. My wife and I had discussed who should pick her up. Jill had already left work and said she would do it since she was already out in the car. The plane landed at 9:21 PM. It was 11:30 PM when I checked the “Find My” app, and found that my family had gone to a late dinner, and nobody told me. Maybe they figured I was busy. Or maybe they just didn’t think of me. I was home, in a chair, at my desk, writing, not anything important at the moment. Just writing, which is what I do when I’m by myself. With my phone facing me on the little magnetic charger to my right. Nobody called or texted.
That is the whole story. There is no betrayal in it, no slammed door, no scene. A small group of people I love decided on a meal, and the thought of me did not come up. When I found out, it landed in my chest like a stair you misjudge in the dark. I want to tell you why a missed invitation hurts like a physical thing, and why, after a year of reading the science on it, I have stopped believing the line everyone has handed me my whole life, which is that I am simply too sensitive.
I am not too sensitive. My instrument is fine. The room is the problem.
The thing nobody calls a wound
Start with the body, since that is where this lives. The largest review of the evidence, pooling seventy studies and more than three million people, found that loneliness and social isolation raise your risk of dying early at a rate that sits next to smoking and beats obesity (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015). Not your feelings about dying early. Your actual odds. The body does not file a claim for social disconnection under “hurt feelings.” It files it under “threat to the organism,” and it bills for it, in cortisol and bad sleep and a heart that ages faster than the calendar says it should.
So when I tell you the dinner felt like an injury, I am not reaching for a metaphor. I am reporting a reading off a gauge that evolution installed long before anyone invented the polite fiction that words can’t hurt you.
Here is the part that took me longest to accept. The science says the kind of exclusion that wrecks you is rarely the dramatic kind. Kipling Williams spent decades studying ostracism and built a model around a simple, brutal finding: being ignored threatens four things at once, your sense of belonging, your self-worth, your sense of control, and your sense that your existence means something (Williams, 2009). The effect is enormous and almost impossible to talk yourself out of. People get the full hit even when they’re told a computer is excluding them; they know it’s a computer.
And the ambiguous version, the forgotten-not-rejected version, the my-family-just-didn’t-think-of-me version, is often worse than a clean no. A clean no, your mind can process and bury. An ambiguous one runs in a loop. Did they forget? Are they angry? Was it me? Each answer means something different about the rest of your life, so the mind keeps all the tabs open and lets them drain the battery. I have decades of these. Each one, alone, was plausibly an oversight. Together, they are a pattern, and my brain was correct to detect it. That is not paranoia. That is arithmetic.
The airport, and the dignity of being asked
A few months back, I drove to the airport at night to pick up the same daughter. I did the task. The task went fine. Afterward, the son and the daughter peeled off to meet friends, and I went home, since nobody mentioned an outing to me until it was already happening to other people.
Someone will say, reasonably, that I’d had a long night and the lights and noise of a midnight outing to a bar or restaurant would have wrecked me, and I probably wouldn’t have wanted to go. They might be right. I am autistic, diagnosed at fifty-something after a lifetime of being told I was just difficult, and a loud room after a long day is a genuine cost for me. But notice what that reasoning does. It decides, on my behalf, that I would have said no, and then skips the part where I get asked. Dignity is not in the meal or meeting up with people. The dignity is in being the one who declines. Baumeister and Leary, in a paper published thirty years later, defined the need to belong not as contact but as frequent care from people inside an ongoing bond (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Being invited and saying no feeds that. Not being invited starves it, even when the no would have been mine.
CringeGar
My youngest twin son once decided I was funny. Not funny, like she tells good jokes. Funny like a thing you point at. He coined a name for me, a mashup of my name and the word cringe, and he was good at it, the way kids are good at the one cruelty that works. He got a whole scout troop of boys to use it. For about a year, I was that name to a room full of teenagers, and the consensus, including from the adults who heard it, was that it fit. It was good fun. I was the one who couldn’t take a joke.
When I got upset, the upset became the offense. This is the oldest move in an invalidating house: hit someone, and when they flinch, the flinch is the thing that ruined the evening. There is research on exactly this, on the experience of being chronically misread and then blamed for your own reaction. It names that pattern as a real predictor of suicidality in autistic adults (Cassidy et al., 2018). I am not citing that to win an argument with my kid. I’m citing it since, for years, I thought the wrongness was a personal failing, and it turns out it has a literature.
Damian Milton gave the failing back its real name. The old story said autistic people can’t read other people’s minds, or even read the room. Milton’s double empathy problem holds that the misreading runs both ways, that I am no worse at reading my son than my son is at reading me. That the only reason the deficit gets filed under my name is that the people holding the diagnostic pen are not autistic (Milton, 2012). This is not a soft idea. When you put autistic people in a chain and have them pass a story down the line, the story survives at the same rate it does among non-autistic people. It degrades in the mixed chains, the ones with both (Crompton et al., 2020). The breakage is in the translation, not in me. My son’s teasing read, to him and to the room, as light. It landed on me as contempt. Both readings are real. The asymmetry is that only mine gets called a misread.
The son who went quiet
The older twin son, by a minute, voting in his first presidential election, voted for the administration that has spent this last year working through a hit list of my healthcare, my documents, my potential domestic terror profile, and my ability to exist in public. After my initial outburst, I was told that I shouldn’t assume he understood the stakes. So, one night, sitting on the bed my wife and I sleep in each night, I explained to him, plainly, the way you explain something to a person you raised and still hope thinks well of you. He has been distant from me since.
Pauline Boss built her whole career on the kind of loss this is. She calls it an ambiguous loss, and she splits it into two. There is a physical absence with the person still psychologically present, the missing soldier, the disappeared. And there is the other one, physical presence with the person psychologically gone (Boss, 1999). My son is alive. He is in the family group chat. He left a thumbs-up on a thread a few weeks ago. He has not said a word to me since the election that isn’t for something he needs. “Can you help me set up the internet in my apartment?” “Can you help me finish my taxes?” He is, in her exact phrase, here and not here. Boss’s finding, the one that reorganized how I think about this, is that ambiguous loss is the hardest grief there is, harder than a death, since the mind cannot close a loop that the person keeps half-open by still technically being there.
Stack onto that what we know about family rejection for people like me. The cleanest study, a national sample of trans adults, found that high family rejection more than tripled the odds of a lifetime suicide attempt (Klein & Golub, 2016). Not friend rejection. Not stranger cruelty, which I can almost set my watch by. Family. The math on autistic trans women is its own quiet catastrophe, since the two run together far more often than chance would predict (Warrier et al., 2020), which means a lot of us are carrying both stacks of stones up the same hill.
The relief and the grief that came in the same envelope
I was diagnosed autistic in my fifties. The women who get found this late tend to get found the same way I did, after a lifetime of passing, of building a person out of careful imitation and running her in public until the battery dies (Bargiela et al., 2016). The masking has a cost, the research now measures anxiety, depression, and exhaustion (Hull et al., 2017). When the diagnosis finally came, it arrived as two things in one envelope. Relief, since the lifelong wrongness had a name and the name was not “moral failure.” And grief, for the kid nobody accommodated, the one who got told she had boy germs in kindergarten and believed it meant something was contaminated in her, rather than something was wrong with the kid doing the telling.
There was a phone call about six years ago when my mother had a computer issue, and I was the one who could help her. At the end of the troubleshooting session, she signed off by saying “thank you, sir,” and hung up. I cried for twenty minutes over one syllable. There was a Father’s Day when every person in the room used the old name all afternoon, and the reason given, the one I have been handed for years, was that nobody was ready yet. I have stopped waiting for people to get ready. People who never try do not get ready. They just stay not-ready, comfortably, as you do the bleeding.
In 2019, I tried to end my life. I did not, obviously. I have written about that day before, and I am not going to dress it up here. What I will say is that the version of me who did that believed the wrongness was hers. The science I’ve been reading this past year says it wasn’t, and I find myself believing the science.
The instrument is fine.
Here is where it lands, and it is not the warm place you might expect, since the warm version would be a lie, and you’ve all had enough of those.
The lonely brain gets accused of distortion. The story goes that loneliness makes you see a threat that isn’t there, rejection in a neutral face, a snub in an honest oversight. For a lot of lonely people, there is something to that. But run the tape on my life. The girl who said I had boy germs was not a misread. The scout troop chanting a cruel name was not a misperception. The executive administration working through its list is not a figment. The son’s silence is not in my head, since I can see the thumbs-up he left for everyone but me. My threat detector is not malfunctioning. It has been carefully calibrated for over fifty years by an environment that kept proving it right.
That is the conclusion, and I want it stated clearly, since every soft person in my life has spent decades trying to talk me out of the only thing I know to be true about myself. The problem was never my perception. The problem is what I have been correctly perceiving.
The same research that delivered that grim little fact delivered the one piece of mercy I trust too, since it had to fight its way past the grim part to get to me. Across the literature on lonely kids, queer mental health, autistic wellbeing, trans suicide, the protective effect of a single durable relationship with someone who actually sees you is large enough that some clinicians just call it the one-person rule. Not the whole family is fixed. Not the silent son returned. One person, real, ongoing, safe. I have spent my life trying to be invited to every dinner. The evidence says I needed one chair, not the whole table, and I was looking at the wrong piece of furniture.
I am a skeptical agnostic Lutheran, which means I distrust tidy endings and the people selling them, including, frequently, the people in my own pews. So I won’t give you one. I am still lonely. One son still gaslights me for his amusement, and the other son is still quiet. The math is still the math. But I have put down the one belief that was doing me the most damage, the one where my instrument was the broken thing. It was never the instrument. It was the room. Knowing the difference does not fix the room. It does, on a good day, stop me from taking the room’s word for what I’m worth.
If you read this and recognized your own chair sitting empty, the part of me that did 2019 wants you to know there is a number, 988, and a person at the other end of it, and that calling it is not the dramatic thing the movies made it. It is closer to telling someone the truth out loud for the first time, which, in my experience, is exactly what started it all.
Author Note
Grace Ann Hansen is an independent researcher and writer, and an MBA and PhD graduate student in health informatics and artificial intelligence. She is a published author, a professional musician, a gymnastics coach, and a queer transgender woman living in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. She corrects all her papers and articles with Grammarly, since though she has deep thoughts, she has shallow patience for punctuation. She uses Anthropic’s Claude in Research mode for source location and verification on cited factual claims; all interpretation, argument, and prose are her own. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Grace Ann Hansen at grace@graceannhansen.com.
References
Bargiela, S., Steward, R., & Mandy, W. (2016). The experiences of late-diagnosed women with autism spectrum conditions: An investigation of the female autism phenotype. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(10), 3281–3294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2872-8
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Boss, P. (1999). Ambiguous loss: Learning to live with unresolved grief. Harvard University Press. https://www.ambiguousloss.com/about/
Cassidy, S., Bradley, L., Shaw, R., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2018). Risk markers for suicidality in autistic adults. Molecular Autism, 9, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-018-0226-4
Crompton, C. J., Ropar, D., Evans-Williams, C. V. M., Flynn, E. G., & Fletcher-Watson, S. (2020). Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective. Autism, 24(7), 1704–1712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320919286
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352
Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., Allison, C., Smith, P., Baron-Cohen, S., Lai, M.-C., & Mandy, W. (2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(8), 2519–2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3166-5
Klein, A., & Golub, S. A. (2016). Family rejection as a predictor of suicide attempts and substance misuse among transgender and gender nonconforming adults. LGBT Health, 3(3), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2015.0111
Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The “double empathy problem.” Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
Warrier, V., Greenberg, D. M., Weir, E., Buckingham, C., Smith, P., Lai, M.-C., Allison, C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2020). Elevated rates of autism, other neurodevelopmental and psychiatric diagnoses, and autistic traits in transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Nature Communications, 11, 3959. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17794-1
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1