This is soley a list of how to be explicitly negative internally and externally, the people in this thread equating it to disorders need to re-think the text. Its a list of what not to do as a human.

With respect to all; there is an incredible amount of subtle communications that go into standard conversations

that list fits the bill for becoming POTUS

This is satire. He is describing the attitude generally demonstrated on social media.

The anti-social behaviors I'm seeing are a lot more primitive (engagement and reaction bait, and other "simulated conduct" as I like to call it), and the people engaging in them don't really need a guide. Sarcastic rants like this always strike me as somewhere between tonedeaf and insulting as a result. You know it perfectly well that it's those who should be minding these the most are the ones that never will (and won't even be reading this).

That said, if I may be so hypocritical to add to the list, the heavy reliance on pointing out fallacies is a pretty big one. A lot of the times it simply degenerates conversations into logical golf, with no semblance of trying to actually understand the other person remaining. Though in those cases, that intent was usually never really present to begin with.

As someone who identifies as autistic, after particularly notable social encounters, I describe them, best I can, to ChatGPT, and damned if the thing doesn't explain why people reacted the way they did so I can do better next time.

This list is actually just narcissism combined with low self-esteem.

For younger introverts, none of this behavior is necessarily anti-social if the group all shares these same traits. The moment a member of that group has any higher self-esteem than the rest, they will either see that individual as "cool" or as a threat (or both).

To be truly anti-social is to either completely isolate yourself, or be unrelentingly and unreasonably hostile in all interactions. This list is neither. It's just passive aggressive and a lot of ego.

I never understood why “anti social” is seen as a negative trait, full of prejudice too (I mean, read that garbage article, passive aggressive BS too). Most people who built or achieved great or innovative things were anti social or at least didn’t waste their time bar hopping.. when people want to detox and disconnect, they go anti social, monks gurus you name it, also live in solitude, being alone will make you wiser and more creative if you are smart, and crazier if you are an average person, and covid lockdowns were a good example. From my observation, the more social a person is the more average they are, mediocre, wasting time in mostly useless interactions and sometimes even negative with all the peer pressure it brings, in fact, I would even argue the more social you are the more you become an outlier, a walking NPC who’s constantly under peer pressure, anxiety, and depression when not meeting impossible expectations. It’s a large scale gaslighting making a spectrum where an extrovert is good, introvert is bad, meanwhile the ones who are lifting the society and keeping it running are the introvert nerds.

The sociopath version:

Do every thing on this list under the hood while presenting the exact opposite as a facade for public consumption.

I've seen a lot posts like this recently. This comment is coming from the perspective of someone who the author would consider "anti-social": I once reported my boss to HR for a racist remark, and then resigned in protest. By 2026 I have embraced being a somewhat Diogenesian outcast and progressive hall monitor. I lost friends over it.

So I find this post incredibly condescending, and it seems clearly directed at a few specific people this author had some sort of moral or political disagreement with. Which means the author is committing the exact sins he's inveighing against!

I will be a little more specific:

  assume they have no sane reason for doing or saying what they are doing or saying

Who exactly is assuming bad faith here? When I have a moral disagreement with someone it's rarely because they are ignorant or insane, it's because we have a fundamental difference in values. As a progressive, usually the person I disagree with is quite cynical and deeply rational. They might in good faith assume I am a bleeding heart who is also somewhat rational. Sometimes hearts are irreconcilable: a rich person I went to college with decided to become a for-profit landlord, so we aren't friends anymore. I simply think they're evil and won't associate with them. Stuff like that is always confusing and upsetting, often for both people involved; I am sure my landlord apostate friend didn't see what the big deal was. The author's "view from nowhere" posture is quite childish.

  assume intent is malicious, ignorant, or amoral.

This is followed immediately by the author assuming malicious ignorance! "do not challenge or acknowledge the existence or influence of your assumptions, wholly trust your intuition and feelings"

  interpret others' actions in the context of your fears

This is just pure sneering judgment. It doesn't mean anything, it's just name-calling. "People disagree with me because they're cowards!"

  exploit your immediate network; when the obvious merits of your narrative are exhausted, present like-minded people with tastefully curated details of your interactions with detractors, to provide a more appropriate account that your supporters can rally around to crush any lingering threats to your narrative

Again there seems to be some very specific baggage here! Did he get in a fight on Twitter or something? Anyway, "your supporters can rally around" contradicts these people being "anti-social" and "isolating." Perhaps there are a large number of people who disagree with the author's values, and that's what he's really upset about. But rather than say "people disagree with me and I can't convince them otherwise" he is content to say "people disagree with me because they're antisocial cowards." This is itself antisocial and cowardly, isn't it? I think the author should be concluding "getting in fights on Twitter is bad for human souls."

  do not grant grace to those who make mistakes, especially those that you have never met or otherwise spoken to

It does not seem like he is granting any of these anti-social people any grace, just a wall of unforgiving judgment. If they admit they are irrational weaklings then maybe the author will allow them a tiny helping of grace, as a treat.

  do not seek to understand those you do not already understand

Indeed I get the impression the author doesn't understand me at all, and has no interest in doing so. It's a lot easier to just conclude I am a stupid coward.

[dead]