Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria: The Lessening
‘Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria’ (RSD) is, of course, not yet a formal diagnosis acknowledged by the Gods That Walk Among Us known as ‘psychiatrists’[a]. But off the top of my head, my neurodivergence-dominated social circles casually refer to our RSD as a matter of fact, as a standard part of the adhd experience. ADDitude mag describes RSD as:
a common but under-researched and oft-misunderstood symptom of ADHD, particularly in adults ... Dysphoria is the Greek word meaning unbearable; its use emphasizes the severe physical and emotional pain suffered by people with RSD when they encounter real or perceived rejection, criticism, or teasing. The emotional intensity of RSD is described by my patients as a wound. The response is well beyond all proportion to the nature of the event that triggered it.
— “New Insights Into Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria”
The impression i get is that, for many of us, giving this experience a label has provided us with yet another Ah-Ha! moment. It's certainly been the case for me; it's a useful shorthand to convey a specific sort of experience that we'd assumed (or been led to assume) was a singular problem not experienced by others. There's a certain kind of strength that comes from learning that one isn't alone, and bonding over shared experiences (including, unfortunately, of gaslighting by health professionals).
In the last few years, i've noticed i'm experiencing RSD significantly less often, and less intensely when i do. And i think that's substantially due to the fact that my social circles are, it turns out, overwhelmingly autistic+adhd.
In interacting with people in my social circles, i feel like the social games that are pervasive in neurotypical culture are, if not totally absent, then greatly diminished. People won't do the thing of using certain stock phrases to mean something other than their surface meaning. For example: i would have thought a phrase like “Let's catch up again soon” would mean, y'know, “Let's catch up again soon.” But apparently in various language communities it's a ‘polite’ and ‘respectful’ way of saying “Goodbye; I have no interest in engaging with you further”. And let's not forget that “How are you?“ is often not intended as a genuine question, but as a ritual phrase to which one is expected to say something like “I'm good thanks, how are you?” To which one is expected to say something like “Fine thanks”[b]. (A ritual i found particularly challenging when i was working in call centres despite my Chronic Fatigue; i was so tired that i was nauseated to the verge of vomiting, and there i was with my head on the desk saying “I'm good thanks”.)
You know what i find ‘polite’ and ‘respectful’? People being direct and honest with me[c]. Don't want to talk to me ever again? Okay; tell me that clearly, and i'll respect that boundary. If you say “We should get coffee sometime”, i'll know you don't necessarily literally mean coffee, but i don't think i'm being totally unreasonable to interpret that as meaning that you would, at least in theory, be amenable to future socialising. To me, it's disingenuous at best for that phrase to be used - as it apparently sometimes is - as a supposedly ‘polite’ and ‘respectful’ social ritual which says goodbye whilst not actually extending an invitation to reconnect at some point.
The thing is, in my experience, this sort of linguistic chicanery is very rare amongst the nd people i know. And so if i don't hear from a friend with adhd for a while, i don't spend time ruminating about might be actually going on that the other person hasn't expressed in a direct way (which would be trés gauche). i'm more likely to think "lol, ADHDer, probably got distracted by some new hyperfixation”, or just think that they've had way too much on their plate.
(Also, a few nd people have noted that reconnecting with other nd people after an extended separation often feels relatively effortless, that the connection can quite quickly ‘slot back into place’. Which has pretty much been my experience. Whereas neurotypical culture seems to require constant pings, without which one is somehow actively discarding a person. Presumably the idea is that a ping demonstrates that you're thinking of someone, but i know that i'm constantly thinking of various people in my life, and hoping they're doing well; and i know from experience that those people are doing likewise, even if their own life commitments and their adhd and their autism or whatever mean they've not been able to be in active contact with me.)
Further: in my social circles, it's not generally a social faux pas to be direct, to say e.g. “Hey, i'd like to play with you sometime, interested?”, instead of the clearly dysfunctional system of ‘signs’ and ‘signals’ that one is supposed to just ‘get’[d]. i've asked several people questions along these lines; some have said yes, some have said no, but in all cases it's clear where things stand, and in the “no” cases, we've moved on to developing friendships i value highly.
So, yeah, i'm experiencing less RSD because i'm dealing with much less of the ambiguity and artifice that i feel is characteristic of neurotypical culture. And i'd suggest one doesn't need to look too hard at society to note that these aspects of neurotypical culture don't seem to be working for neurotypicals either.
☙
☙
[a] For some background to this snark, refer to this post from last year:
“How the failures of psychiatrists contribute to people self-diagnosing with adhd”
[b] Yes, it's basically the TCP SYN -> ACK -> SYN ACK sequence.
Wikipedia: ‘Transmission Control Protocol’
[c] There's a certain type of person - often neurotypical, but not necessarily - who proclaims their pride in being “brutally honest”, in “calling it like it is”. The underlying claim is that it's not possible to be honest in a diplomatic way, that honesty requires brutality. There's a neat chart - i don't know the original source - which contrasts such ‘brutal honesty’ with ‘loving honesty’:
| Brutal honesty | Loving honesty |
|---|---|
| Makes only the truth-teller feel good | Is difficult for both speaker and recipient |
| Assumes stupidity of the recipient | Understands that the recipient is intelligent and can make the best decisions about his/her life |
| Isn't necessarily vital for the recipient to know | Is vital that the recipient know |
| Is usually expressed spontaneously | Is usually expressed after a great deal of thought |
| Is said out of irritation with the other person | Is offered out of concern for the other's well-being |
There are specifics i have issues with - for example, i find the phrase ‘loving honesty’ quite twee, and concern trolling is a thing:
But i nevertheless appreciate the overall sentiment.
[d] Which many women feel compelled to engage in because being direct can result in social opprobrium, e.g. being labelled as a ‘slut’ (where being sexually promiscuous is considered to be an inherently bad thing).