Tackling Double Empathy: The Cauliflower Conundrum

Priya loves finding interesting recipes to share with her friend Marn, who's an enthusiastic home cook. When she spotted a recipe featuring complex techniques she knew Marn would enjoy, she immediately sent it over. There was just one problem she hadn't noticed - the recipe's main ingredient was cauliflower, and Marn absolutely hates cauliflower.

When Marn received the recipe, two equally valid responses came to mind:

Option A: "Thank you so much! Really thoughtful of you, it looks really interesting! Swap the cauliflower for chicken and it might be really delicious!"

Option B: "Thank you. That's a really kind thought. You know I love cooking!"

Here's where it gets interesting - both responses are genuinely collaborative, but they express collaboration differently.

If Marn Chooses Option A

Marn sees this as building on Priya's thoughtful gesture. By engaging directly with the recipe and suggesting modifications, Marn is inviting Priya into a creative exchange. Marn might expect Priya to respond with her own ideas: "I'd stick with the cauliflower personally, but maybe some bread on the side would work!" This back-and-forth feels collaborative because they're creating something together.

But Priya might feel stung. She might hear criticism of her gift-giving skills or feel like Marn is rejecting her attempt to connect. "Why mention the cauliflower at all?" Priya might wonder. "I was trying to do something nice."

If Marn Chooses Option B

Marn sees this as protecting the moment of connection. By focusing on Priya's thoughtfulness rather than the recipe's flaw, Marn keeps multiple conversational doors open. Priya can choose to discuss recipes further, share more, or simply enjoy the appreciation. This feels collaborative because it doesn't force a single direction on their interaction.

But Priya might feel confused. She might wonder if Marn will actually try the recipe, or worry that Marn is being polite but disengaged. "Does Marn even care that I thought of them?" Priya might think. "They seem so... distant."

The Real Problem

Both options are naturally collaborative, but when misunderstood, both styles can lead to frustration, confusion, and hurt feelings. The friction isn't about the responses themselves - it's about presuming rather than clarifying intention.

Option A people often define collaboration as working together on solutions. Option B people often define it as maintaining flexible space for connection. Neither is wrong, but assuming others share your definition creates invisible conflicts.

The Neurodivergence Connection

Significant work has gone into defining the communication patterns associated with neurodivergence. Laurent Mottron offers us guidance when he proposes that literal communication is a strong feature of many neurodivergent brains. Predominant neurotypes tend to be what is described as social communicators, and this can be a big player in the 'double empathy problem'. When we function at cross-purposes, we struggle to understand each other.

The Workplace Echo

This same dynamic plays out when colleagues share flawed ideas, managers assign problematic projects, or team members propose incomplete solutions. We presume others define "collaborative" the way we do, then feel frustrated when they don't respond as expected.

The solution isn't changing your style - it's recognizing when unclarified intentions are creating friction. When collaboration feels broken, pause and ask: "Are we defining collaboration the same way?"

Because sometimes the cauliflower isn't really about the cauliflower at all.