Something that continues to baffle me is how many people will draw conclusions about whether something is *possible*, purely based on whether it has succeeded so far - without any attempt at understanding *why* something has succeeded or failed before, and whether that might be possible to change by changing the circumstances.
And like, this is not just a neurotypical thing. I see plenty of ND folks do this just as much. And the conclusions are always super absolutist - not "I don't see how to make this work", but straight-up "this is clearly not possible at all".
That's not to say that there aren't things that are *literally* impossible, of course. But like, you do at least need to be able to explain *why* it is impossible, what the fundamental barrier is? And not just assume it based on observed results?
And I really hate it when people do this, because it ends up demotivating a lot of people from even trying - they just *believe* these absolutist statements, and now it definitely won't be possible because nobody even attempts it anymore
