Are women sexist against themselves?

Post Reply New Topic

I guess the thing is that I don't really see my girlfriends as same-age. Rather, I see them as a parent-figures from whom I seek approval. I guess what have happened is that any kind of same-age interaction have ended at 14 when I moved to USA. So between 14 and 21 I was only interacting with my mom and her friends, all of which were adult. So I guess my mind simply forgotten a category of "same age peer" so that I automatically started to put all the same-age people into "adult" category. And I guess it is easy to do because the same-age category were only used up untill I was 14 when I left Russia. So obviously same-age peers back then were much younger than same-age peers right now.

By the way, you brought a good point. Because speaking of whether or not I have "the same validity as others", back in Russia when others were my peers indeed that is how I thought and I never took what they had to say personally. So may be what have changed is that right now, as an adult, I no longer view anyone as peers, but instead view them as authority figures.



I do resent being sheltered by my mom, but like you said, anyone would.

But I am not sure whether or not in this particular sentence you were sarcastically referring to something else; please clarify.



Well basically in Russia there is no detention room. They would simply make you stay in hallway if you misbehave during the class. But as far as misbehaving during the break, there is nothing teachers can do about it unless it is something really extreme. Well, yes they did have these discussions I mentioned, but the point is that they would never actually do any disciplinary action or anything. Also speaking of behavior in class the same thing it would take much more to be kicked out of class in Russia than in USA. In fact even during midterm sometimes teacher left classroom and then my bullies were making threats in order to get me to help them with their test. Whenever teacher came back and they were caught, she didn't fail anyone or anything, she simply gave them a different problem.



I guess mainly I was disoriented for a few years due to not knowing English. I guess the whole thing about not knowing anyone's names and faces also dates back to when I moved to USA. Probably because the American names weren't familiar to me the way Russian ones were, so I haven't been remembering them for the few years it would take me to familiarize myself with them. And then after the few years were over, I lost the habbit.

The other part of the equation might be that in Russia there is no such thing as choosing classes, everyone is assigned the same classes. So in Russia I have spent several years with the same old kids which made it easy to remember them.

As far as differences between Russia and America, I guess I mainly noticed whatever affected me the most. So when I moved to America my parents became extremely overprotective and won't allow me to walk alone on the street. They told me that it is American culture that children under 18 don't walk alone. I guess I have heard here and htere that may be it is true, but I think the fact that my parents are overprotective is the biggest part of the equation, especially since right before I moved to America I lost my way in a forest when I went running. So I think THAT was why they did what they did as opposed to American culture. But since they blamed it on American culture I just took it at face value and noticed a lot of other things such as the fact that in America children weren't allowed to walk home from school unless parents gave teachers a permission to let them go home, and stuff like that. So I guess this might be attributed to culture shock.



What are you referring to by 'all around us, on these message boards"



No what I mean by bad behavior is that I was doing it on purpose in order to pull people's knees. So basically I have learned that no one gets mad at me unless I specifically DECIDE to make them mad because it is fun. So when in "real life" I started seeing people being mad at me WITHOUT my deciding to make them mad, it was a shock.



Well, I guess even though I was teased A LOT in Russia, it is still true that the kids were "forgiving" in a sense that since I was viewed as screwed up in a head there was no reason to get mad at me. Personally i would rather be back in Russia than now, because the kind of thing I am facing right now hurst much more.



I was just making a comparison with how back in Russia my parents told me to dismiss some kids as "bad" which was no longer an option now in Jewish club. So I just used the word "bad" in order to make comparison.



Just to correct the Jewish club dirrector was "she" and not "he". And the thing is that I told her I have Asperger and yes she took it seriously. But the point is that telling her that I have Asperger made it WORSE rather than better. Because what she said is that since I have Asperger, and it is lifelong condition, how would i possilby learn social skills? And if I can't learn them, then she can't let me on that trip.



Even though it is less effort, still consider the fact that few weeks of effort will have MUCH LONGER benefits. So the only rationale for saving efforts is when someone is 100% sure it won't work. So thats what makes me feel I am worthless. If after knowing me for few days they know 100% that no ammount of effort would work,then it really has to be very obvious.



The thing is that when I say I DIDN"T want friends (notice the past tense) I am referring to time prior to 2001. And right now when I came reaching for hand it is after 2001. So what I am trying to say is that the mailing list AT 2001 basically changed my whole attitude about everything. And I wish I could go back to the time before that mailing list and go from there; then I am sure would of had ph.d. by now since I won'ot have been so disracted by these thoughts.



I guess in my case it is somewhat similar. I don't INITIALLY intend to sidetrack, but the point is that I can't just take certain things on faith value. So I go much deeper into them which leads me into a host of other things that end up being sidetracks. I have several unpublished work that I haven't even shown to my professors because I felt like I only did it in order to clarify some things and LATER come back to what I have to do. But then when it got to the point that I was nearly kicked out of school for lack of progress I was basically forced to try to make something out of what I did in the past, and I found a professor at another school that is willing to do it with me (NO it is NOT the one close to home). But otherwise I would of never done it because I was scared someone would steal my ideas, and at the same time I felt too busy to published them. The whole fear of my ideas being stolen went away because when I was in real danger of being kicked out last spring it was a kind of shock treatment to help me see what my priorities are.




Like I said, since I haven't had much experience with the internet I viewed people in the internet as "abstract" so I developed a habbit of being overly honest with them since abstracts can't hurt me.

The unfortunate part of it is that after I was, in fact, hurt in 2001, I haven't figured out a way of breaking that habbit, simply because I have practiced it for few years so it was ingrained into my system. So I guess now I have two parts to me: the part that was comming from "real world" where I keep things from everyone, and the part that comes from internet where I am overly honest.

But then when it comes to NEW people I meet, such as my girlfriends, these two parts get confused with one another so at some points I am way too open and honest with them and hten I go and say "wait a second I have to take back everything I said no matter how tiny" and this causes a lot of conflicts. But the irony of the situation is that if I remember my thoughts WHILE I was saying unwanted things to my girlfriends, these were NOT accidents; quite the opposite I wanted to pull their legs to test their reaction, and then after their reaction isn't the one I want it to be, then I have to take it back and it comes to the point that I FORGET the fact that I was testing them and sincerely feel it was an accident. And why does it happen this way? Because I practiced it too many times while on the internet.

So yah, that goes towards saying that I have to go back much further than that mailing list, and actually all the way back to when I first used internet, at 18. Prior to that I don't think I was EVER been so open and honest with anyone. Everyone was "real", there were no abstracts, etc. Sure I didn't have friends because they were "waste of time" and sometimes I hurt people's feelings on purpose, but this was all consistent with my mindset of what was important and what was "waste of time", so I don't remember a single thing I did before I started using internet which I came to regret later. I had far better self esteem and I felt a lot healthier.




Yah right now I agree with what you are saying. But the funny thing is that back then no matter how many times I was told that I couldn't EVER agree. I only started to agree with it when I learned it on my own, all through my own independant trials and tribulations after 2001.



Yah I agree that it can be true about most cultures. But another thing to note is that there are more then one mental illness. So may be DIFFERENT mental illnesses are influencing different cultures. For example, Christianity might be influenced by schizophrenia, at least in terms of its conspiracy theories. So in light of that picture I can say that Judaism is the culture that is influenced by autism AS OPPOSED to other mental illnesses.

As far as mystic finds he can swim while madman won't, I would even question that. Society is the one that judges who is swimming and who doesn't, so may be it is more about social norms of a time as opposed to what happends inside a person that is judged by the society. For instance, in what way are the rituals of autistic any worse than rituals of Jews? Neither is self-damaging. The only difference is that 20-th century tolerance teaches us not to view any cultural phenomenon as pathological, hence Jews are viewed as normal and we are left with autistics being the only "madman" ones. But if we go back to middle ages, then Jew-rituals were just as much inappropriate and damaging to ones life as autistic-rituals are.



But mutation can happen. Especially since Jews are isolated in terms of gene pool, this leaves plenty of room for mutation to occur.

Appart from that, due to the fact that 10 out of the 12 tribes of Israel were lost, it is possible that these two tribes are the autistic ones, while the lost ones are the "balanced" ones that are today's Whites. And finally some of the new genes might have been carried into Jewish gene pool upon the conversion of Khazar tribes for example.





I understand what you are saying. But the same is true for dozens and dozens of non-Jewish groups with similar fates. Yet throughout history Jews are the only ones that NEVEER succeeded rebelling against hteir opressors. So statistically Jews are weaker.



They did, and then I defended myself by saying that I am Jewish myself, but everyone ignored that statement as if they haven't read it or something.

Also, you have to note the fact that I said that Jews have SUPERIOR skills in math and science. So as far as math and science I am pro-Jewish, and as far as fighting I am antisemitic, which kind of balances out. Plus the fact that I am a physicist should suggest that I would typically put more importance on science part.

I guess people have mental filters so that the pro-Jewish pieces aren't noticed while antisemitic ones are. So in the balanced 50/50 presentation, one naturally looks antisemitic since these are the things that people's mind gets stuck on. The same applies to blacks.

So I guess it would be much more fair to say that the people who have these mental filters are anti-white. But then their defense is that White ppl enslaved blacks and perssecutted Jews. Okay fine, so if it is okay to be anti-White because of what Whites did, why should it not be okay to be anti-semitic because of racist things in Talmud?

I am not saying I am supporting the above view. On the contrary, as a scientist, I want to do honest analysis of facts without ever holding grunges against anyone. But when it comes to OTHERS accusing me of something I am not guilty of, I have to point out that they, too, have double standarts in their thinking.



I agree with what you are saying. In fact I said myself how Jews both GOOD in sciences and BAD in fighting, both because of autism. So I reflected what you were saying. And like you said in the last sentence, we need both autistics and NT-s, and thats why Whites (as opposed to autistic Jews OR ultra-NT blacks) were most successful because being "in the middle" they have both autistic and ultra-NT members to fulfill all the range of functions.



But if something is offensive it doesn't make it non-true. What Galileo said about earth revolving around the sun was also offensive to his contemporaries.



I never denied individual viarence. I personally know one black girl from UC Berkeley who was one of the smartest ppl in class. What I am trying to say is STATISTICALLY things happen the way they do. And, if you ask yourself why European civilization is more advanced than African, the statistics is what matters, becase if there are FEW individual blacks in Africa who are very smart their NUMBER isn't enough to create a culture.

If you read my theory carefully, I also appealed to the individual variation when I said that Whites have both autistics and ultra-NTs. Okay lets assume for a second there is NO variation. So we have autistic Jews with one set of skills, ultra-NT blacks with other set of skills and "average" whites with yet another set of skills. All three groups only posess ONE set of skills with the exclusion of all the others. So there is no need to say that ANY of them is more limitted than any one else. They are all equally limitted.

ON THE OTHER HAND let now remind ourselves that there is variation. Just to make an illlustration, lets just pick random numbers for that effect. So, among Whites we have 10% ultra NT-s, 10% autistics, and 80% averages. Among Jews we have 2% ultra NT-s, 28% autistics and 70% averages. Among blacks we have 28% ultra NT-s, 2% autistics and 70% averages.

First note this: I have just said that Whites have 80% averages, while both Jews and blacks have 70% averages. In other words, the proportions of averages don't differ too much, so I am by no means stereotyping either blacks or Jews.

But now lets look at something else. If we are strictly interested in science and nothing else, we would want to single out autistic members of all three groups. So among Jews we have 28% autistics, among whites we have 10% autistics and among blacks we have 2% autistics. So this means that the proportion of Jewish scientists is 3 times bigger than the proportion of white scientists, which in turn five times bigger than proportion of black scientists.

Once again, I never made any statement about comparing INDIVIDUAL members of each group. In particular, it is entirely possible that some of the people among 2% of black autistics are better in science than some of the ppl among 10% of white autistics. But the point is that THEIR NUMBERS are much fewer. So, no matter how smart they might be, if there are so few of them they can't build the mathematics and science in the whole African continent from scratch all by themselves. So this have set a stage for blacks to be enslaved later on in history which brings them to where they are at now.

The moral of what I am saying is that up untill the second half of 20-th century, races were playing against each other as teams. So of course within each team we can have as much variation among the strength of its players as we want. But due to the setup of a game, the fate of every single member of a team ultimately depends on the AVERAGE strength of a team as a whole. So, due to the fact that ON AVERAGE blacks are not as good in science as Whites are, all of them ultimately had to suffer for it through slavery which would of never happened if there were more science and technology in Africa prior to that.

Speaking of Jews, I can say similar thing. Of course their autism didn't help them in terms of competting with other teams. But there is something else that went on. Namely, due to the fact that the percentage of Jewish scientists is three times higher than White scientists, this set a stage for the emphasis on education in Jewish culture. And then, the emphasis on education within a culture ultimately influenced all its members to some extend.

Likewise, thanks to 28% of Jews who are autistic, we have the Talmud which advocates exclusivity. Once we do have Talmud, it is then being taught to all the Jews from infancy, and so it is ingrained into heads of Jews who are otherwise perfectly NT, thanks to the autistic ones that made it possible. So the education, which is also culturally based, again divides different racial groups into "teams" which makes it possible for all the individuals to be affected by some extend by the fact that they have a certain PROPORTION of autistics.

So my theory very much DOES appeal to proportion. If there were no variation, then it won't matter exactly where the racial group is. After all, like you said both being autistic and being NT has its own advantages and disadvantages. The ONE thing that makes it important of being in the middle (i.e. White) is VARIATION. Precicely BECAUSE OF VARIATION Whites are both blessed with 10% aspies AND with 10% ultra-NT-s.

If there were no variation, Whites would of had 0% autistics, and 0% ultra- NT-s, which means they would of been bad BOTH in science AND in sports (after all, NONE of us would of been good in science if not for Isaac Newton). BUT, precisely BECAUSE we have variation, Whites end up being in a big advantage over both Jews and blacks, since DUE TO VARIATION, the Whites become the unique group that has ENOUGH people on both ends on the bell curve (and when I said the word ENOUGH I was asknowledging that the other two groups have them too).



Yah, thats exactly what the accusation was.



Like I said, UP UNTILL I was hurt on that list, I was viewing all the people in the internet as "abstracts" so all their anger wasn't dirrected at me, but only at abstract Roman. After I was hurt my whole outlook had changed and I felt horrible. But there was no way for me to be able to predict that.



I don't even understand why girls are interested in "knights in shining armor" to start with. I simply don't see what is there romantic about that. What does romance have to do with fighting? That is why I totally feel judged each time a girl evaluates me by these means, which is the original topic of this post.

And by the way, it is quite possible that I am doing it to myself when I deliberately show my sensitive side each time I am in love with someone by deliberately exagerating all of my weaknesses and downplaying my strengths. THe thing is that no matter how much I understend INTELLECTUALLY that women aren't attracted to that, I can't help wanting to do that every time I am attracted to a woman. I mean, the only way to change it is to change the way I am attracted to women, which I can't help.

And to illustrate just how common is the confusing of love and fighting, just look at the following expressions: "HIT it off", "have a CRUSH on ... ", "leading ... on", etc. ALL suggesting some kind of physical action, which has nothing to do with any kind of feelings if you simply stare at the words HIT, CRUSH, LEADING, etc. On the other hand being FRIENDS with someone means no chance on earth, as opposed to stranger who can "HIT it off" within few days.



Yah thats what happened. But due to my total social ignorance, I haven't heard any terms such as "social mirroring" which caused me to think that I am the only person in the planet who does that. I guess it goes back to what you were saying that I have to immerse myself into real world a little bit more.



She was a lesbian so she had issues with any kind of "bigotry", and then she was reading it into everything even when it wasn't there. Typically I would of said that she is the one with the issues; but again due to the whole thing about having crush on Sarah, I was thinking that even a fly would be important if it happends to fly between me and Sarah.



It wasn't "same s**t different day". After all, during all the days prior to that I was hurting ppl over and over again over describing my experiements with the autistic/down kid, and I was NEVER hurt by negative reaction. So this definitely wasn't the same day. And what made it different is probably Sarah.



No, I wanted to play 100% opposite to what I was feeling inside. So inside I was feeling that I cared about Sarah so much, but Down and Clare was standing in a way, which wasn't fair. So, as a defense mechanism, I wanted to pretend that I DIDN"T "care about Sarah so much". In order to do it, I had to yell at Sarah for pestering me. So basically I wanted Sarah to write to me so that I can make up a reason to ask her to never contact me again. And then I wanted Sarah to continue to pester me so that I can continue to ask her to never contact me again. That way I would of been "even".

But then in October I realized that this particular dream wasn't healthy so I decided to go back from defense mechanism to being real me, and that was when I started to look at different message boards so that I can find a way to get back in touch with her FOR REAL.



Yah right now I 100% agree with you. But back then I was far more naive.



Again, I agree with you. But back then I was far more naive and I didn't have anyone to tell me that.



Yah that is exactly right. But what am I supposed to do? I mean that is what Asperger IS about: living in one's own head. So I am wondering how come in this whole Asperger message board I am the one who lives in my own head the most, even when Brina Siegel said in 1997 that my Asperger was mild.



But didn't you say you only believe in what is RATIONAL? I was thinking this would imply that you are atheist or at most agnostic, which would rule out occult.




I agree, but the question is how can I "stop looking" if I am surrounded by people where I am constantly reminded how most of them are in a relationship and I am not?



Yah thats what I was trying to tell you.




Okay, back in Fall 2001 I went to the Jewish club to try to get one, and it didn't work too well. And by the way back then I weren't looking for a girlfriend, I was only looking for friends, just like you suggested, but still didn't work out. So that is where it is circular. Due to the fact that I don't have life, people don't accept me, which stays in my way of getting one.

Last edited by Roman on 21 Nov 2006, 12:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

That is exactly what I was thinking back when I first came to Jewish club. But obviously others didn't allow me to "immerse myself in it". So it is circular: in order to have good social skills, I have to practice, but in order for others to allow me to practice, I need to have good social skills from the start.



But you see, from my perspective the whole thing about confidence even being part of an equation of whom you are attracted to, is very judgemental. That is the point I was trying to make in the original post.

Furthermore, I also disagree with the fact that she judged MY confidence by my mom, when the point is that I can't control my mom. And even if I could, I can't change a past, either.



I agree with every single thing you said so far. But here is my question for you: WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO? How can I change another person?

Actually, this falls in the same category as the question of what am I supposed to do about women not liking me. There is something about me that makes people think I am inferior. In case of people who care about me, this would come in a form of them thinking I won't survive unless they shelter me. In case of women, this comes in a form of them rejecting me. But the bottom line is the same: due to the fact that I am different from others, people jump to conclusions that aren't true, and I am stuck here thinking what am I suppose to do to change their mind?

Even if I do learn the "rules of the game" (which I highly doubt I would due to Asperger), there is another question: what should I do to change a past? My mom is judging me based on the past. I mean, I weren't living with her ever since 2001, so obviously the reason she babies me now is because of whatever happened PRIOR to 2001 when I was infantile, but there is nothing I can do to change the past.



Okay here are few things:

1)It is NOT just my mom, it is EVERYONE in my family (both my mom's mom, and also my dad was even worse prior to the time he left back to Russia). Appart from that, my mom's landlord (who is UC Berkeley professor) is helping her out each time I am rebelling against her.

2)If I compare it to the way I turn girls off, this seems to be part of bigger picture of my mis-representing myself due to Asperger. But I do say MIS-REPRESENTING because the single problem that Asperger causes me is inability to make GOOD IMPRESSIONS; thats why I so wish people weren't basing their judgement so much on their impressions.

3)Yes she has a job to do and she is often very busy staying late hours and such, and she also has to care for her mom who is 79 years old.

4)What am I supposed to do about all that? I can't control other people's minds.




Same as above



No, because that is something I am equally pissed about.



Well every second time we talk, I swear at her. So when I do that she appologises, but then the next time we talk she again talks to me in that exact controlling way.



Well in my case I can't simply DECIDE not to care what her opinion is, because I do. So thats why I am forced to keep things from her.




Okay what is your step by step instruction on how NOT to put up with that?



Whatever it was, the point is that she jumped to conclusion. And then Anne judged me based on the conclusion of some girl she doesn't even know.



The reason I talk about Asperger is purely practical. If they don't know I have Asperger they would take my behavior as rude. But then when I do tell that I have Asperger, they start jumping to other kinds of conclusions which are equally unwanted. So that is catch 22.



The reason she didn't is that she assumed that my social skills are so poor that there is no need of trying since she knows for the fact it won't work. This is the same way as other girls know for a fact that the relationship with me won't work before they ever tried. And this is also similar to my mom knowing for a fact I can't take care of myself despite the fact that over 5 years I was living on my own.



She was afraid that I would forget to pay, in hte same way as my mom was afraid I would forget to look up the name of the hotel. Both fears are completely wrong, so this is a proof that due to my Asperger I have a tendency of making bad impressions on others and misrepresenting my true abilities.



Like I said, I DO yell at my mom, but this only changes her behavior for half an hour at most. The reason I told Anne that I can't stand up is that with my first girlfriend, Sarah, that little thing that only "took 5 minutes to say" involved the fact that i yelled at my mom back in high school. So how much worse would it be if I were to say that I yell at my mom right now? So it is no win situation. If I say I yell at my mom, it is bad. If I say I can't stand up, it is also bad. So what else should I say?

And especially, what Anne assumed is that my mom's opinion of me is to be trusted. She even wanted to meet my mom in person in order to discuss my simptoms (the only reason she didn't is that I told her I was keeping her from my mom). So, her problem was NOT that I didn't stand up. Her problem was that

my mom shelters me ==> I need sheltering ==> that is something she can't handle

The underlying assumption in the first "==>" is that my mom is right, and like you said it isn't true. So thats why the whole thing isn't fair. I know myself much better than my mom, so why not ask ME whether I really appreciate what my mom does or not.



Suppose I was a man. How would this have enabled me to control other people's thoughts? I mean, that is what it would take. Yelling at her doesn't work. So I would have to somehow psychically control her thoughts or something.

As far as man verses boy, isn't it judgemental? So, after all, you DO agree with other people's judgement, despite the fact that you were telling me previously not to take them seriously. So now that you DO agree that there are boys and there are men, does it mean that you also suspect that I might have been right when I said I was inferior to others?




Well this time it is Anne, and not my mom. I weren't requiring food, so I weren't eating, simple as that. But Anne somehow decided that it means that I am not independant.



Just like with eating, I didn't expect her to help me here either. I don't have a habbit of taking a shower, and somehow I survive. So it is Anne who thought that I wasn't self-sufficient or whatever. This is no different from my mom when she looks at the mess in my room and decides I can't find a name of hotel. Well the reason I have mess in my room is that it doesn't change a thing about anything, and my mom is the only one who thinks it is important. On the other hand, with hotel OF COURSE I have to find its name, just like with studies OF COURSE I have to stay on track. But somehow this distinction totally escapes my mom, she thinks if i can't be an adult in things that don't matter, then I can't function in things that matter either. Same with Anne. Anne decided that since I am not taking a shower and forgetting to eat it means that I am not indepentant, but for me these are simply not the things I would care about.



If it is evolutionary, why can't the RATIONAL human beings sit down and re-evaluate it? Okay you say they don't have time. But it only takes few hours to do some extra thinking here, and it can possibly save the LIFE of mistakes. So the fact that they aren't re-evaluating it implies that they see it as fact as opposed to their biological tendency.



Even if they are self serving, won't it be to their advantage if they spent another half an hour with me to find out that they were wrong and actually I am the man of their dreams? That would of helped them, as self serving as they might be. On the other hand, if they are right, what do they have to lose by spending another half an hour? Thats why i am saying htey should test their assumption even if they are 99% sure they are right. And this argument goes through even when they are self serving.




If I am "more intelligent" as opposed to "most intelligent" then I am sure there are people like me. So how come I am not in a relationship with one of them?



That is unfair. I would say the fact that I don't respect myself implies that I am MORE HONEST than most people. So why should they choose some arrogant jerks over someone honest?



But if I won't tell them about Asperger, then they would take my conversation style as "rude".



I agree. I guess I am simply desperate thats why I would get into relationship with anyone and everyone that comes my way.




Yah, and thats my problem. If I can't be 100% sure about things in the other person's head, this leaves a room for a possibility that I said something that changed their thinking in some way. And in this case I would be constantly dwelling into every single thing I said to them for the past few weeks.



I agree. Thats why I hide that obsession by faking as if I am pursuing some obsession OTHER THAN that.



OK

No I never talk to people in hallway. As far as my classes, the only reason I ever talk to people is to help me with finding my math mistakes in homeworks, and in most cases that only drove them crazy.



Well, personally I simply am not attracted to big breasts. Actually I like women with average to smaller breasts simply because it makes them look skinnier.



But the fact that they don't take time to sit down and re-evaluate their nature implies that they are sure their nature is right. After all, re-evaluating of one-s nature takes far shorter time then potentially much better life that follows.



No by chemistry I weren't referring to sex. What I meant was that if a person acts in a way that they are biologically wired to act (such as picking someone to hate, etc) then thats chemistry in their head that makes them do that. So in these terms your argument is "don't worry, that is only chemistry", and my answer is "but isn't everything chemistry, even my desire to impress my professors? So what would be the point in life if I ignore it?"

Maybe you're just not driven in the same way you're trying to be driven?

Meaning...

Sex doesn't have to be important, it can be something you enjoy rarely, or not at all, it all depends on what you know you want and need.

I went over 8 months with no sex, which according to my previously unusually strong sex drive seemed impossible, but resulted in huge amounts of learning and creativity.

Be what you are! If you don't know, you are alive and you have the chance to find out.

However you can't really define something always changing and learning into a box, its easier to define it in terms of pursuits and desires, that way you can simply be yourself yet always grow.

Yes chemistry defines a lot of aspects of ourselves, but there has to be a point where willpower comes into it, a point where you tell yourself what you're good at, and pursue it.

Meaning yes you are programmed to be good at what you're good at, but the fact is many people tend to avoid that out of fear, or not bother to find out, which means your potential is simply going to waste.

If people hate you, instead of trying to change the hate, how about changing your perception of the hate?

"I love you my enemy, for without you I would only be fighting myself"

Everyone as authority figures now? But what authority do most people have over you?



No, I was not being sarcastic. I (and most people I've known) surely would have been frustrated and resentful in that situation. I was just wondering if it struck you that way too, or if you had a different emotional reaction to it.



That's unfortunate... kids like that should be punished imo, not that sort of behavior let slide.



That's not true really... kids under 18 walk around without their parents all the time.



The tales of bullying from other people on these boards, and how it affected their self-esteem is what I was referring to. Whether taken seriously or not, no one likes being bullied.



Are Americans more negative towards an absence of certain social behaviors than Russians, or was it mainly an effect of your increasing age? "He's X years old, he ought to know that by now." sort of thing?

How was it, to be in Russia during the Cold War and its end? Being born and raised in America, I am not certain that I have an accurate picture of it... during the Cold War, propaganda was rife on both sides.



So you were viewed as screwy, but there was less rejection... or the rejection was somehow less "personal" over there?



Well, you're not bad. Confused as hell, but evil? You do not strike me as having any more capacity in that direction than anyone else. *shrugs*



They can be learned eventually, in much the same way as other people might learn to play a violin. They're just not instinctive.

But yeah, the second virtually anything normally falling under the label of "Pervasive Developmental Disorder" comes up, people tend to react with attitudes that it's hopeless, that this person is not their problem... basically, they incorrectly view it as a critical and largely irreparable defect and they don't want to have to deal with it. It is far less off-putting to NTs to speak of how you are as just being your personality, rather than the results of something like that.



Humanity is generally very self-serving... expecting them to take spend weeks of time and effort to benefit someone else rather than themselves is generally a futile expectation.



Heh, man may not live by science alone, you know... you'd probably have only been postponing this same process until a later date. It was bound to happen sooner or later, I think.



In close relationships, one has to be very subtle about such testings, or not do them at all. Or if they drink, do it when they are drunk. Not only will they sometimes not remember it later at all due to alcohol-induced memory failure, but past a certain point of inebriation, the self-censor clicks off and the truth comes out. Of course, if they don't drink already, don't try and make them... they'll just think you're f'ed up and weird.



If socializing on the internet is that hard on you, perhaps you should seek the social contact you desire elsewhere?



*shrugs* Most psych undergrads come to that realization as freshmen, sophomores, or juniors... but that was not your major. Ah, we used to have such fun dissecting the theorist. lol



Jews were also supposedly seeing burning bushes that talked... this would augur for schizophrenia too.



I tend to privately judge them by where they fall on Global Assessment of Functioning. So long as they're able to hold down a job, have friends, have a romantic life, aren't a danger to self or others, etc. I really don't care if they think there's little green men living behind the refrigerator. Then again, I'm not a clinician. lol

It's the rituals of schizophrenics which really disturb me. Ever read some of the older "in the trenches" psychoanalytic stuff, like Karl Menninger's Man Against Himself? Ick, lol. I mean, people convinced they're jesus to the point where they're trying to crucify themselves... you name it. Of course, this makes one automatically wonder how they would manage to get the last nail in, but that's beside the point.



Yes, but that far over only a few thousand years? Life was hard back then, what survival advantage would there have been in not being physically adept and minutely aware of your surroundings?



An entire tribe of autistic people? It is thought provoking, but I still question the survivability of such a group.



I can think of one... what about Egypt?



Since the Holocaust people have been very sensitive to any sort of anti-Jewish sentiments. Even now, if you asked a random person on the street to name the worst, most horrible person in history, how many of them would say Hitler?

As far as the Talmud goes... every culture fancies themselves superior and the one that god (or the gods) like best. You can see that stuff practically everywhere. lol.



All "geek" stereotypes aside, does skill in science and technology automatically mean a predisposition to autism, though?



To me, it goes back to pragmatism. Unless you're actively seeking to cause people trouble, there's no point in saying something unless something good will come of you doing so.

For example, let's say there's a woman standing there. She's only average height, but must weigh at least 350 pounds. Yes, by any objective standard this woman is morbidly obese. She obviously has a serious weight problem. But what's the point of telling her how fat she is? Will it help the situation? No. She's just going to get pissed off, everyone else will be pissed off too, you'll roundly be considered a total as*hole for saying it, and she will still be fat. The only logical thing to do in this instance would be to just keep your mouth shut.



Yes, but are all autistics scientists? Some, maybe. But all? Hell, some autistics can't do much but stare at the wall and flap their hands, that would not stand them in good stead to make a contribution in science, you know?



I see what you're saying regarding racial variance, but it brings up an interesting question... the ancient people of Egypt developed a fairly advanced civilization. One cannot help but wonder where those genes went.



Because if he can't or won't fight, I'm simply uninterested. There's no compatibility there. You've probably noticed by now that my own personality is confrontative, stubborn, and not the sort that takes much s**t from people. A man who does not like brawls would simply not be a compatible match... I'd end up running right over top of him, whether I meant to or not.

Not only that, but I require a man who will stand shoulder to shoulder with me in the face of whatever onrushing hellstorm must be met, rather than hiding behind me and leaving me to deal with it alone.



I think deep down, you are looking more for a woman who will take care of you... hence why you play up your weaknesses and downplay your strengths, in an effort to get her to do so. Honestly, you'd probably be better off if you portrayed both your strengths and your weaknesses realistically.



Oh, social mirroring's just the fancy term for it. You can watch people interact and get the same general idea.



One wonders why she deemed the interaction between you and Sarah to be her business like that at all.



Lol, I mean that the reactions to your experiments and so on were an interesting diversion from standard messageboard procedure. The flame wars are the most interesting bits, imo. Then again, I'd think so.



You live in your own head, because the world outside your head bewilders you and gives you pain. Is it not so?



I didn't just get the hotheaded streak which was typical of the Celts... I also ended up with their tendency to impassioned oratory, and their tendency to see that which goes bump in the night. When the reality of what one is seeing keeps being validated by later experience, it becomes illogical to doubt there's an underlying reality there.

Like anything else in my environment which engages my curiosity, it too serves as a field of experimentation for me.



For me, I just was finally so disgusted with the whole damn scene that I stopped. What's especially ironic is that years later once I was already in a relationship, several of the guys I knew back then shamefacedly admitted to me that they had feelings for me back then. Apparently, I'm considered "intimidating"...

Then again, back then I think that in spite of their bluster and bravado, most of them were practically scared of their own shadows.



Are there any sort of clubs for Asperger's people or other folks who are "weird" nearby, something like that?

Last edited by Hazelwudi on 21 Nov 2006, 5:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

Just some thoughts

"Yah that is exactly right. But what am I supposed to do? I mean that is what Asperger IS about: living in one's own head. So I am wondering how come in this whole Asperger message board I am the one who lives in my own head the most, even when Brina Siegel said in 1997 that my Asperger was mild.
"
Ok, living in your own head, that DOESNT prevent you from relating to others, anxiety, miscommunication, and fear does. I think the best thing I can say is if you can pursue your own interests, as opposed to worrying about what those around you want and need, you might find your interests simply aren't "getting a partner" or "getting lucky"

Wouldn't you rather someone love you for yourself, as opposed to because you managed to create an image they like?

"Like anything else in my environment which engages my curiosity, it too serves as a field of experimentation for me."

This is beautiful, treating people themselves like an experiment for your own thoughts and interests, through this I found a way i could even help others, or inspire strangers, despite the communication gap.

Though sometimes it seems the language is totally different, its simply a more subtle form, we are (a lot of the time) pushed to the extreme edges of emotion, but it doesn't mean its pointless, in fact use this to give yourself confidence in your strength of mind.


"I agree, but the question is how can I "stop looking" if I am surrounded by people where I am constantly reminded how most of them are in a relationship and I am not?
"
Like I said above...

Also, my mum and dad are together, my sister and brother both have partners, so I've always spent all my energy trying to gain and maintain one. Until recently I realised its simply not a priority for me, maybe it isn't for you either?

Maybe focusing on something that feels even more important to you than this is essential, if you have such a drive?

Aye. Maybe start with psych theory and later ally the books with real world experience, or perhaps social gatherings of "weird" people who would be less apt to reject you?
]



Can people really help what they're attracted to, though? I mean, you can tell me that I "should" be attracted to men who shave their body hair and are high maintenance for instance, but I still simply not attracted to them.



True, but you can stop allowing her to have say in your life.



My mother was domineering and disagreeable too. She and I fought constantly, because she was too neurotic to chill the f**k out and leave me alone. Hell, I was in my early 20's before we could be in the same room for more then 5 or 10 minutes and remain even vaguely civil to each other. In my early 20's, she realized I was going to sever all ties if she didn't stop. Sheer pragmatism forced her out of most of it.

And what about your father? Has she no husband to ride herd on her, or is he too mild-mannered and unassuming to?



Take care of your own business, don't portray yourself as weak, and whenever someone crosses the line in terms of interference in your life, point it out and tell them to back the hell off.

It privately amazes me that you didn't learn that as a child... when I was a child, coming across as "weak" in any way was practically considered a standing invitation to be cruel to me. In this, my upbringing was actually more far akin to that of most males in this culture than most females. When a little girl displays weakness, most people privately think that since she's a girl, she's just too psychologically fragile to help it. When a boy does, he's sat on and made fun of until he learns to "hang tough".... and so was I.





You can't control other people's minds, but you can determine the level of BS you'll put up with before you give them more hell than they can handle.

It's none of my business, but are you financially self-sufficient? If you were to somehow end up estranged from your family, would you be able to support yourself?



Why? We're all going to die someday, why not enjoy yourself while you can?



Ever just hang up on her when she does that? Back when I was an undergrad, hanging up on each other in disgust was practially a sporting event. lol



Why do you care? Christ, I stopped giving a damn about the opinions my parents had of me before I was even old enough to shave my legs.



Tell her not to come. Stand up for yourself. And if she shows up anyway, make it look like you're not home and don't let her in. Later on, tell her that you were at the library or with friends or something... make it clear that she's no longer the numero uno priority of your life, and that if she wants to interact with you, it'll be more on your terms and less on hers.



Better to be considered rude than irreparably defective, which is how a lot of NT's view anyone afflicted by a pervasive developmental disorder.



This is unfortunate. You'll need opportunities to observe and interact in order to learn.



And yet, in your other post you said you intentionally downplay your strengths and play up your weaknesses. If you want people to give you credit for being an independent, takes-care-of-his-own-shit sort of person, this downplaying is counterproductive.



Stop relying on others to tell you what is moral and what is not moral. You're not ret*d or sociopathic, you know what is moral and what is not. What do you need their two cents for?

Imo, you need a woman who is far less fragile than Sarah was... someone who takes conflict and struggle as a natural part of life, doesn't take s**t off people, and doesn't expect others to take s**t off people. She couldn't even say "f**k", you said. I mean, come on... by her age, most people have been cussed and had others cuss them to the point where it barely even fazes them anymore.



Stop pretending to be defective in order to get people to take care of you, and then getting mad when they try to. You're not, so why the charade? What do you get out of this behavior that makes it worth engaging in?



No, because they don't realize that you pretending to be weak is a silly charade. I do.

As for the whole mother dynamic... where do you think I got the scotch-irish temper from? (It wasn't from my father.) For someone to not stand up to their mother... it just floors me. I had to, to get any peace at home whatsoever. She'd just pick pick pick pick pick and try to start s**t to the point where I'd turn around and say something so heartlessly cruel and at the same time so indisputably true that she'd be literally stunned rigid for a moment. If she tried to retaliate, I'd strike again, in another vulnerable spot. Eventually, she'd crawl off to sulk and lick her wounds, and I could get some goddamn peace for a change.

See, my parents divorced the summer before I turned 13. My mother, brother, and I moved away to another state, to be near her parents who were getting on in years. My mother, who had been on Librium for years, believed that "since the reason why I needed that stuff is gone (my father) I don't need Librium anymore."

Needless to say, things were very... interesting... at home as a result. When she wasn't trying to start s**t with me, she was bitching and whining in general. When she wasn't engaging in these activities, she was either watching tv or asleep. She was not employed, nor was she interested in being employed... we lived off a combination of child support and alimony payments and the charity of her parents. I did all the housework, and was her new favored target for BS, seeing that my father was gone. She said she hated me, and frankly this was probably true. I had long since ceased to give a damn at that point... as far as I was concerned at the time, there was nothing wrong with the family dynamics that I couldn't have very effectively cured in about 5 minutes with an axe.

Why didn't I? Pragmatism. I could either just deal with it for a few more years and get out when I turned 18, or I could pull a Lizzie Borden and potentially end up with a life sentence in a prison somewhere. So I waited, counting the days until I would go off to college and get the f**k out.



But you said you weren't comfortable with telling her that you needed to go get something to eat. Why not?



Don't you hate it when your hair gets greasy though? When it's like that, touching it feels nasty. I've been told that the scalp will start to itch real bad if you let it go long enough, too... it makes sense, what with all the dead skin buildup and whatnot.



It is hardwired in the meat, and most people don't bother to question it, any more than they question eating a meal or taking a dump. lol



They stereotype you, and then react more to the stereotype than the person. And the stereotypes of Aspergers really aren't good.



Just like with any trait which falls along a normal bell curve, you've got a lot more people closer to the mean than on the extreme ends. This also applies to intelligence.



Because people overwhelmingly prefer pleasant lies to the brutal truth. They don't want honesty, they want to feel good.

Yes, it sucks... but it's the truth.



What precisely happened in the Jewish club that made them think you were rude, anyhow?



You're worth more than that, so stop pretending you're not.



That's counterproductive, though.... it makes you look very anxious.

Why don't you casually shoot the s**t with them, though? There's got to be some who have a good sense of humor and enjoy this sort of thing.



You like the lil delicate ones, eh?



It doesn't even occur to them to re-evaluate usually... people mostly rely on cognitive heuristics in my experience, because going on a case-by-case basis takes a lot more time and effort.



Perhaps there is a way for you to not set off the cognitive heuristics in people's heads you're setting off now?

I haven't consciously realized that untill our conversation right now when you were talking about htenm being my "pears".



If you read what I said I haven't said it was true. I said thats what my parents did to me.



I can't compare because back in Russia it wasn't my concern so I didn't pay attention. But logically, this should be true if you take things that are part of American culture but not part of Russian one. For example, in Russia people don't smile as much as in America. So my guess is that the fact that I don't know how to chit chat might cause me more problems here in America. But again thats just a guess.



Well might be. Probably something alone the lines "she is X years old so her opinion is to be taken seriously".



Well I seen a lot of communist propaganda in textbooks when I was in elementary school, but then obviously around 1990 it all ended and they had different textbooks.

I think though that speaking of all these discussions teachers had about how students treat each other this was probably in line with communism because back in communist days their deal was to change people. So I have heard that actually it was quite common in jobs and stuff to openly criticize and teach people. In fact I even heard that if member of communist party was to cheat on their partner they would make a party meeting where they would openly criticize that person's behavior.

This should be contrasted with "social politeness" in America where people just wouldn't confront each other. In Russia open confrontation is far more common then here -- I was living in 5 story house and I kept hearing different people that lived in the house sitting in the bench and arguing with each other.

On the other hand, the "alternative" way of dealing with people, such as complaining to dirrector of Jewish club is NOT popular in Russia. Ever since Stalin's time it became a taboo for people to complain against each other or especially punish each other based on such complains simply because this reminded them too much of Stalin and they were tired of this sort of thing. So in Russia it was always encoraged to talk to a person openly as opposed to complaining behind their backs, whereas in America it is visa versa.

So I guess that is probably why teachers weren't eager to punish kids for whatever they did to me. But personally I would MUCH rather be confronted than to have to GUESS what other people's problem is. At least that way I can defend myself, and also I won't be feeling like others are dishonest with me. But then again this is something all aspies would say, regardless of the country they live in.



There were NO rejection. Looking back, my bullies were only bullying me some of the time, while other part of the time they were trying to be my friends, although I haven't realized it back then. I don't remember a single person who made it a point not to talk to me. Personally I would rather be bullied than rejected -- at least that way I can defend myself and also I don't have to sit and guess just why did the other person "forgot" to call me.



I never said "evil". I said BAD. And from people's actions it seems that being "confused" is even worse than being "evil", so I am bad for being confused.




So if social skills can be learned even for ppl with Asperger, why don't NT realize it?



Why "benefit someone else"? I thought it would benefit THEM if they will find out that after all I am a saint.

Another thing: if htey are self serving, why would they judge me based on my personal characteristics? How will it be hurting THEM that I am "weird"? So obviously they aren't 100% self serving, otherwise they wouldn't mind my differences as long as they don't affect THEM.



Well, things would of been much better if it were to happen after I had my ph.d.



I didn't say socializing on the internet is hard for me. What I said was that internet changed my personality and this new personality stays in my way, whether I am on the internet or not. So right now it is too late to get off the internet because it is already ingrained into my system. I have to go back and unlearn it somehow.

As far as actual socializing I would say on the internet it is easier, as far as the fact that difficulties of starting and continuing conversation are removed.



If you want to be religious, it was God so it isn't schizophrenia. If you want to be secular, then they didn't see them; their grandchildren fantasized it. Now fantasy is common among little kids and autistics are known to be younger than their age.



See, you have included friendship and romantic life, and that is entirely up to the way OTHERS judge them because these are the doors others can either open or close. So back at the time when Jew-rituals were looked down upon, the Jews weren't able to have too many non-Jewish friends. Sure, they had Jewish friends, but so do autisics have autistic friends, so it is all similar.



Lets take Schizotypal Personality Disorder which is considered milder variant of schizophrenia. So these people are a little less social, a little more superstitious and a little more paranoid, and thats it. No hallucinations, nothing too extreme. So as for the superstition part, it is part of most cultures. Thats why DSM 4 had to spell out that it shouldn't be attributed to specific culture the person is from. And that is where the line is drawn that isn't there on the first place. Why is it any more wrong to be superstitious in your own way as opposed to doing the same exact thing as part of the group? So the point is that whoever wrote DSM 4 have DECIDED where to draw the line based on the prejudice towards the ppl who are part of the group and against the ppl who aren't. But if you take prejudice away, it is entirely possible that groups of people were affected as a whole.

Now as far as global assessment and such, well consider the fact that the way person functions in life is affected by other people they are surrounded with that either help him or stay in the way. So if person A and person B are equally ill but the particular simptoms of person B are less socially acceptable, then OF COURSE person B would be the one not having friends and not being able to hold a job. But when the whole society is affected by mental illness, then it automatically becomes socially acceptable so they do much better. So your question on how can autistic tribes survive has a very easy answer.



Yes that is plenty of time for mutation. It was shown that if we isolate a gene pool to small village we would have a zoo after only few generations. That is why a lot of cultures disapprove of incest because when similar mutations come from both sides they become far more influential. Now Jews are bigger than small village so instead of few generations it took few thousand years for mutations to occur.





As far as advantage, we are only comparing Jews with other cultures that survived. We can't comare them with the cultures that died out because we don't know what they are. And clearly to say that every single culture that survived had evolutionary advantage over its peers that also survived would be a contradiction.

So, it is fine for them to be in disadvantage as compared to others who also survived, as long as Jews are survivable. And yes autistics are survivable. First of all, in my discussion about percentages I stated that only minority of Jews are autistic; it is simply that autistic minority of Jews is larger than autistic minority of non-Jews. Secondly, high functioning autistic CAN live independantly. What stays in their way is prejudices of NT-s, which won't be so strong if the whole culture is autistic.




The reason today's autistics are donig so badly is that they are surrounded by NT-s who close all doors to them. If the society was mostly autistic it would of been the other way around, NT minority would of been ostracised and NT-s would of been the ones doing badly.



1)If you want to be religious, then it doesn't count because God did it for them; if you want to be secular, you have no evidence that this thing ever happened on the first place.

2)Given that 10 of the tribes of Israel were lost and today are known as Europeans, the majority of ppl who left Israel were White. Only 2 of the 10 tribes are the ancestors of today's Jews. And even their genes are different from genes of today's Jews given the Khazar conversion to Judaism.



I agree that every culture fancies themselves, but in case of Jews it is far more extreme since they are the only ones who were never obsorbed into their host cultures.

Now, lets forget who did what. Lets just look at Mein Kampf and at the Talmud side by side. They look pretty similar. So then lets ask ourselves a question: if they were so similar to start with, how come Hitler was the only one able to materialize it? Well probably because Jews are weaker than him. Now look at this:

Jews are weak ==> Hitler AS OPPOSED TO Jews was able to materialize his hatred ==> people started to feel sorry for Jews ==> antisemitism became a taboo ==> in particular it became a taboo to say that Jews area weak

Now, look at very first and very last items in the above chain:

Jews are weak ==> it became a taboo to say that Jews are week

To make it more general

X is victim ==> it is taboo to criticize X ==> it is taboo to say that X is weak

So ... are all victims STRONG? This would fly in the face of pure logic.

Lets be even more general

A is truth ==> we are tired of dealing with A ==> it is a taboo to say A

So in other words it is taboo to say the truth. This means that political correctness is anything BUT the truth. It isn't an accident that political correctness doesn't always matches truth. But there are REASONS why it should 180% contradict truth. After all if people have to face truth over and over, some aspects of it become painful, so they have to deliberately turn away from it. But if it is a lie, hten even if it isn't a very nice lie, people aren't tired of it yet, so they don't mind it.

Jesus himself said "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me" (John 8:45)

And by the way speaking of Jesus, we all know that we can't be antisemitic for the fact that Jews killed Jesus because none of the today's Jews were alive at that time. So, in light of this logic, why is it okay to be anti-German based on what Hitler did before any of the today's Germans were born? Another reason for not blaming Jews for the death of Jesus is that only few of them were present in the crucifixion scene. Fine, in this case how about the fact that only few of Germans had any say during Hitlers time, and and also how about the fact that only a minority of Americans were slave owners?

So in light of these comparisons we see that the situation in case of Jews verses other groups is very similar: in both cases some great crime is committed (whether it be death of Jesus or the holocaust), in both cases only few are guilty and only at particular time, and in both cases the question is whether or not to blame everyone else who is in that group. So how come it is more politically correct to be anti-German than anti-Jewish? Strictly because Jews are weaker, which goes back to the "paradox" presented earlier.

And here is another similar paradox. How come is it more hateful to say that Jews killed Jesus than it is to say that Romans did? Well, because historically Jews were persecutted for it more than Italians were. And why is it? Probably because Jews were the guilty ones. In other words

X is guilty for the death of Jesus ==> X is persecutted ==> People feel sorry for X ==> people blame anyone BUT X for the death of Jesus

Again ... an example of where politically correct tends to be OPPOSITE (rather than independant) to the truth, for very predictable reasons.

By the way this also relates to the discussion we had earlier in this thread about TODAY"S men suffering because of the fact that htey held the most cards historically. Well most of todays men weren't alive at the time. So, if you shouldn't blame Jews for what their ancestors did to Jesus, why should you blame men for what their ancestors did with women?



I was being vague just to save space. What I meant is that STATISTICALLY there are more scientists among Jews, and like I was trying to spell out, as far as society as a whole, statistics is all I am concerned with.



Okay, saying to woman she is fat has no reason. It neither proves nor refutes any theories. On the other hand, as far as my discussion of blacks it had very good THEORETICAL motivation to it. As a physicist, I can tell that if a theory only explains ONE thing, then it looks like it was manipulated just for that one experiement, so no need to believe it. But if it explaines MANY DIFFERENT THIGNS then yes it makes you think that it is more than coincidence. So the PURPOSE of my theory was NOT any kind of racial superiority, but rather an illustration of how shaddow traits of autism can affect culture. BUt in order to provide IMPERICAL SUPPORT for that theory, I had to dwell on all the other topics in order to show how it explains seemingly unrelated things. So that was my only motivation. And, as a theorist, I have no political agenda. I neither support nor oppose affirmative action. All I am interested in is how the world works, and I am leaving a question of what to do with it to others.



There were studies that have shown that while people with classical autism have right hemisphere stronger than left one, people with Asperger have it visa versa. So autistic ppl have performance IQ higher than verbal while aspies have verbal higher than performance. In light of this, I can claim that there are two different underlying pathologies, and autistic cultures are affected strictly with Asperger. In fact that is what I DO say. After all, my argument is that autistics have larger brains than NT-s and that is why races with bigger brain have higher IQ. THe immediate objection to that is that 80% of autistics have lower IQ. So why am I saying that bigger brain races have higher IQ? Because my hypothesis is that they are affected strictly by Asperger.

This is very much in line with the fact that some of the recent studies have shown that Asperger is 5 times more common than autism, and it is only less known because of many undiagnosed cases. So, in light of this, if both autism and Asperger have separate shaddow simptoms, then one fifth of autistic cultures would be less gifted while 4/5 will be more gifted, which means that statistically they will be more gifted.



In order for Egyptians to have time to develop their culture, they should first prosper economically. True, economic prosperity is also determined by genes, but the other part of the equation is which genes are being favored in which environment. In fact, even when i was saying that Whites do better because they are "in the middle" of autism -- NT range, I was still taking for granted that bell curve is centered around most favored spot, which is of course due to evolution, which means environment is part of the equation.

So what happened with Egyptians is the following:

Environment had changed ==> Egyptian genes are no longer favored in terms of survival ==> Egyptians don't have as much time to devote to their culture.



Okay what you just said is that you don't want a man to be WEAKER than you. In other words, you are looking for an equal. If such were the case for most women, then a man doesn't have to be strong in order to be equal in strength to his girlfriend. So I guess the deal is that women want men to be much stronger than they are themselves as opposed to simply equal and this doesn't make sense. In fact, like title of the thread says, it makes women sexist against themselves because they want to be the weaker partner as opposed to equal.



There are several reasons why I do that

1)Since my social awkwardness is very extreme, it is very easy to make an understatement unless I make an effort not to. But whenever I make an effort to avoid understatement I end up unintentially exagerating it. I guess may be the deal is that if I say X then the other person would hear anything within a bell curve centered at X. So the only way to avoid miscommunication in one direction is to shift bell curve in the opposite dirrection which would guarantee the opposite kind of miscommunication. But the point is that BOTH miscommunications are bad. After all, I don't want a woman to expect me to be albe to do any of the things I am not capable of, such as holding a conversation.

2)When I write college essay one of the recommended techniques is to bring up as much evidence as possible TO THE OPPOSITE of the desired conclusion, and then refute that evidence. I guess I probably am doing it subconsciously in real life. I would first dwell in all of the ways in which I am NOT compatible with a given girl in order to establish the fact that I am honest, and then once my honesty is established I would slide in some of the positives here and htere, and they will all be believed since I am "honest". I was actually doing the same thing in school when I was looking for ph.d. thesis advisor and this made it extremely difficult to find one because whenever I were asked what my intrests were I would start off by deliberately talking about something OTHER than what the given professor's research is, just so that he won't be thinking I am making it up. And then after I am done, I would twist it in order to make a lame claim of some similarities. And then I would be rejected on two different accounts. First becausse my interests don't match. And secondly because my twisting them to make them match suggests that I have problems with comprehension or something. But no matter how many times I learned a hard way NOT to do that, I couldn't help that. I was only lucky that I finally run onto someone who was nice enough to take me on despite my full admission that I have no interesst in what he does.

3)Whenever I actually succeed in making a girl like me, I start feeling that she is going to like me no matter what. So then I decide to "celebrate" it by deliberately repeating some of the mistakes made with previous girls in order to be able to say to myself "see, I am doing the exact thigns I did in the past, but now I FINALLY found someone who is accepting of these". In fact, it works for quite a while. She would be telling me that having Asperger is okay, and that she accepts me for who I am. THe time when she had enough of it would occur at the most unexpected moment, so my problem is that I am not told ahead of time just where the line is.



I understand. I was just trying to make an illusration of my mindset BACK THEN, not now.



Probably becaues she was mad at me, and decided to hit me at the most sensitive spot.



I think you confused mailing list with messsage board. I was talking about my experiements in 1998 -- 1999 on message board. But the whole Down and Sarah business happened in 2001 on mailing list. The way the two are related is that the list owner, Clare, happened to have participated on that message board, so that was why she made life hard for me on the mailing list (by first refusing to send me list of intros, then banning me, and finally threatening to contact my new school) . But Clare (the list owner) was the only one from the list who participated on that message board, so she neither Dawn nor Sarah knows about these experiments. But of course, they know about my racial theories since that is what I was busy with while on the list.



Yah, but the same applies to other aspies, which brings me back to original question of why am I worse off than them?



I am not sure what are you referring to by steak and other things. Please clarify.



Are you saying magic was validated by experience? Please clarify.



Okay, but after you experimented for a while you should have seen how it didn't work.




I never heard of such a thing as club for aspies. Asperger isn't that common for one thing.

Last edited by Roman on 22 Nov 2006, 1:33 am, edited 3 times in total.

Well I am doing psych theory right now on this message board



Never heard of such gatherings.



Well, if Anne simply "couldn't help" the fact that she were turned off by my lack of confidence, then at least she didn't have to specifically ask me more and more questions to find out an info that would control her feelings against her will.



It has nothing to do with that. The reason she is domineering is that she thinks I won't be able to survive otherwise. And in fact probably the biggest reason why my mom and my dad were separated is that they both were way overprotective and were thinking I won't do well unless I do it their way. Now the problem is that their ways weren't the same so they kept fighting over what they believed was best for me.



Well, when I live on a different side of USA from my mom I typically don't obsess about her. I take it for granted that that problem is solved and the only thing I have to deal with is find a girlfriend. And then AT THE MOST UNEXPECTED MOMENT, my mom comes back in and brings up something I believe was LONG SETTLED. Who could predict that over 5 years I lived happilly away from home all of a sudden that issue is back again? Same goes for other things.



Yes up until 18 I definitely viewed "weak" as something i have to hide. But after 18 when I started using internet, I made it a point to display my weaknesses because they are all abstracts. That is one reason I said that internet thing had ruined my personality.

Another thing is that the particular way I am attracted to women is that I want to "surrender myself" to them by portraying all of my weaknesses. And, precisely because these are NOT the things I would share with anyone OTHER THAN women, thats why it feels so good. Also, part of my attraction is wanting to be "like them" which would imply affeminite. So, being weak is something I would do specifically in front of women.

When I am in company of men I would most definiely want to look strong. Sometimes I was even fantasizing of world being split in two halfs so that when I want to be weak I can go strictly to where there are only women without any men seeing me, and when I want to be strong I can go to male half. So yes I konw that being weak is bad. But when I am one on one with woman i am attracted to, this becomes an exception.

Now, prior to the time I started using internet, I never acted on these feelings. After all, what if the one woman I decide to confide to would talk to others about my weaknesses? So, prior to 18 I was acting strong with everyone, no exceptions. But once I went on the internet, then i started talking about my weaknesses with some of the ppl whom I perceived as females, and I guess it went from there.

By the way, this is the biggest reason I keep girlfriends from my mom. Because I associate being attracted with women with being "weak". On the other hand, since I knew my mom BEFORE I ever started using the internet, she is part of teh world from which I hide all of my weaknesses. So thats why I have to hide from her (and everyone else who knew me back than) that I have a girlfriend, when/if I do.




But there is no way my mom would EVER abandon me no matter what. It is the opposite, she refuses to give me ENOUGH space because she feels I won't survive or something.



No what I meant was that it is entirely separate challenge to perswade my mom of that. So I don't see how would it help perswading my mom of X by simply bringing up Y which is equally difficult a challenge.



I did, and I lied to her that it was because batteries of my cell phone died.




If I don't like apples I can't simply decide to start liking them. It is the same thing, excpet much more extreme.




It isn't that simple because she works at the school for the deaf and sometimes she get invitations from other schools for a conference, and one of them is near where I live. Of course, she was the one who established this kind of relaitonship with some schools rather than others. But how can I just tell her to go back and tell the school not to invite her?




She won't "show up anyway" if I tell her not to come. But I don't think it would help me much because there are still all the other ways she is nosing into my life.



I can't do that, because I am trying to deceive her into thinking that nothing had changed since the time prior to that mailing list. So back then I was studying all day long and it was a huge effort to make me take any breaks. So why would I right now be spending time with friends?

Appart from that, she has keys from my appartment so if I am not there she would come in anyway. And since she would spend there few days, I don't see how I can arrange sleeping at my office in school without her calling police to look for me.



Well she knows she isn't my number one priority since I am not returning her calls and stuff. But that doesn't change a thing becausse it isn't about "interaction" of me and her, it is about her worrying that *I* would mess up if left unsupervised.



Regardless of which is better and which is worse, both will lead to rejection. So what should I do in order to actually find a successful relationship?



Thats why I keep asking on how to break the cycle. No one gives me these opportunities.



But when i talk about my weaknesses I only talk about A, B, and C, but others decide it is A through Z. On the other hand, if I don't talk about A, B, and C it is also bad because then I would be expected to act like NT which I am not.



You are confusing two different women named Sarah. The one who couldn't say f**k was Sarah Roberts, while the one who was my first girlfriend was Sarah Jergenson. I met Sarah Roberts in 2001 and we only talked for 2 weeks I was on the list; although of course I was obsessed about her for another couple of years. On the other hand, I met Sarah Jergenson in 2003 and we were in a relatinoship untill 2004. As for Sarah Roberts, she was in a committed relationship with someone else, but I didn't care about it because of my idealistic state of mind. So Sarah Jergenson was the one who was turned off by what I told her about yelling at my mom, while Sarah Roberts is the one who couldn't say f**k. So these are two different people.



But I AM defective in a sense of my social skills, so I better make that part clear in order not to face NT expectations; saying I am shy won't solve it becuasse even shy NT-s know how to hold a basic conversation which I can't do.

The problem is that when I say I am defective in A, B, and C, other people decide that it is also in D, E, and F, which is wrong.



Well, since your mom expectd you to do all the house chores, obviosly she was NOT viewing you as a child; my mom does. She is opposite from yours, she won't make me do chores even if she has to because she doesn't think I can handle a thing.



The point is that I am not that much into the eating verses not eating business anyway. So why should I bother her for no reason? If I am on my own, sure I might as well eat something just because. If I am with someone, then I won't bother that other person.



No, nothing llike that happends to me. Sure my mom and my grandmother freak out every time I come to California because they are obsessed with my hair and each time they are surprised that it is much dirtier than they thought it is. But as for me I can do just fine with my hair the way it is.



Okay but what if it is pointed out to them, what would they say?



So then why doesn't it work if I go back and tell them "I didn't mean A, let me tell you B".



I didn't know how to approach people or hold a conversation. So typically I would sit in the corner waiting for someone to approach me and no one would because they think I am not interested in talking. And then the fact that I weren't talking to anyone for a long time made them think I am angry person. On the other hand, in few rare occasions when someoen did approach me, I won't know how to continue the conversation. So my only two options were either to stare at them and not say a word, or to dwell on the topic that they brought up. The former made it seem like I am mad at them, the latter made it look like I was "accusitory" because I would keep questioning and questioning something lame (like their year and major in school) just to grasp at the straws to keep conversation going.



Even if I am worth more than that, I can't GET more than that. So my choice is either to stick with something less than I am worth or something MUCH less than I am worth. So I choose "less" over "much less".



I can't help it, though.

I don't have that ability. I can't think of a place to start, or what to bring up. Thats why I was ostracized in the Jewish club.



Like I said, I tend to like the whole body. I don't overfocus on any part of it.



But the "time and effort" would eat up less time than the rest of their life when they miss someone valuable.



I don't know what is that way. That heuristics is based on little things I can't control as opposed to one big thing.

Yes, but you view them as authority figures, instead? What authority do they have over you?




I know, but I just wonder why they would do that... an excuse to keep you under the thumb, maybe?



I'd prefer to think that the validity of the view they express determines whether or not it is to be taken seriously, not their age. lol



I'd imagine it was easier in some ways, in such a society... being able to openly criticize people whenever you thought of it. Then again, I could see where it would be harder, too... people would do the same to you also.



So it's ok to b***h at people for doing things you consider inappropriate or stupid in Russia, but telling on people is considered wrong?



Yeah, unless a person has just beyond pissed you off, here it is more the custom to just avoid/ostracize a person, rather than getting up in their face over it. I think it has to do with our attributions... we tend to attribute the person's behavior to their personality, and tend to regard the personality as largely immutable... ie. no amount of bitching is going to change their personality, so why bother?



Ah, ok.



And what is the difference to you, between being evil and being bad? Evil is active malice, and being bad is just making mistakes, sort of thing?



Because Aspergers people who have learned social skills are still somewhat eccentric, but they've mostly integrated themselves into the social fabric. Aspergers people who have not learned social skills stick out like a sore thumb and are far more obvious.



A saint, yet. lol, you have the same capacity for cruelty and horror as anyone else.

Look at the problem from their perspective. "I can either labor mightily in an effort to reform this person, or I can just ignore this person and still have plenty of other friends." Why would they bother? It's far easier to just write you off as being "not their problem" and shut you out.



Because most people want to hang out with people who are like themselves, not people who vastly differ from themselves. Because being surrounded with people akin to yourself makes you feel validated and comfortable... in short, it makes you feel good. Yes, this is indeed self-serving.



Why? Then you'd have to multitask your entrance into the social arena with getting a job in the private sector and dealing with all the demands on you there, or with trying to get tenure as a professor in a university (most of which are 'publish or perish' these days).



How come you would have difficulties having this conversation in real life? Is it due to social evaluation anxiety, or something else?



I think high functioning autistics just have it arranged differently... they're usually older than their age in terms of intellectual matters, but younger in social and physical matters.





Yes, but those are also doors that THEY can open and close themselves. What would you say about someone who is so bitter and cynical they refuse to let even a couple of others get close to them? Is this person happy, let alone well-adjusted? Hell no.



To me, it just goes back to wanting to be around people like yourself. It's easier to deal with people whose expectations and values are similar to your own. *shrugs*



They had to put that line in there regarding culture and religion, because by a purely empirical standard the beliefs of virtually all religions are delusional at best. Think about it... some "Big Daddy" figure living somewhere "up there?" (The Freudians alone would have a field day with this.) Believing that some dude died for your "sins" 2,000 years ago, with no proof? Without excluding culturally valued religious beliefs, nearly everyone would qualify for the madhouse.



It would have to be a very high functioning type of autism... a society of people who just stare at things all day and flap their hands would starve to death in short order.



I'd question that... if ancient records are to be believed, the Hebrews often killed the males of conquered groups, and then took the wives and daughters in the conquered group for mates. This would draw in a great deal of genetic material from outside, and thus introduce far more genetic variance into the population. And they bred like rabbits.



But if the whole culture is autistic, how would NT members "fit in" to that culture?



But without a LARGE percentage of NT's, how would the ancient Hebrews successfully wage war? Most people I've known on the spectrum are pretty clumsy in terms of motor coordination... either fine motor, gross motor, or both.



This is something I've often wondered about... the lack of absorption. Why? Especially since it has rendered them easily discriminated against?



In a weaker position at the time, perhaps. But as I've said, they were quite the marauders way back when. Not just according to the Old Testament (that is your Torah, is it not?), but according also to some of the other cultures who came into contact with them. lol



As I said before, people don't want the often inconvenient, painful truth. They want lies that make them feel good and justify their preconceived notions.

I would defy you to find one person who hasn't at some point thought something "racist" about at least one ethnic group. But at the same time, look what happens when those sorts of ideas are carried to their logical conclusion. Yes... atrocity, extermination pograms, and so forth. Human ash filling the skies, and mountains of starved bodies rotting in the rain.

Philosophically, one might contend that "argument from consequences" is a logical fallacy, but in this case the consequences are so repulsive and disgusting that they simply must not be allowed to happen, at all costs.



The concentration camps and Hitler's "Final Solution" are comparatively fresh in the public mind... there are even still people alive today who remember these things. This is why people associate Germans with this behavior these days, we've got a relatively fresh example.

Any marauding the ancient Hebrews have done happened thousands of years ago and are more a matter for theologians and historians. (Also, Christianity -- I'd imagine Judiasm also -- tends to encourage people to not consider ruthless marauding on the part of the ancient Hebrews to be precisely that... ruthless marauding.)



Because Jesus was a Jew, people expect his own people to have more sympathy and fellow feeling for him than they would expect outsider non-Jews to have for him. His own people to wish him dead is considered more remarkable than for an outsider to wish the same.



I don't blame all men, but I dislike it when I meet men who have the same chauvinistic attitudes which contributed to the oppression of women back then. I blame specific men for their attitude, rather than all men living today for things which occurred before they were even alive.



Even a scientist must take his audience into account, as to how he presents information. You can't teach freshmen in the same way you write journal articles and expect to be an effective teacher.... you'll go waaay over their heads and bore the living hell out of them, to boot. You can't socialize in the same way you teach freshmen, or people will rightly view it as condescending and tell you to piss off. You can't write a journal article in the same way as you would socialize, because the style is nowhere near formal enough.



I remember reading somewhere that Einstein's brain was no larger than ordinary brains, but had many more sulci and gyri... perhaps it is not just size that matters?



But the environment really hadn't changed... in terms of climate, isn't modern Egypt much the same as it was back in the days of the Pharoahs?



Women are raised to consider themselves weak and inferior, they grow used to the role, and want to continue in that role because that's how they see themselves and what they have grown used to. See?

I wonder if you haven't grown used to the notion of being "inferior" somehow, yourself... and feel that behaving otherwise would take you out of the comfort zone created by your self-concept and your habits.



Bah, BS. You're capable of holding a conversation, it's just that you've not learned how to hold one in a face-to-face manner.



Stress similarities over differences, it makes people a lot more comfortable. People want to be around those like themselves. (And in terms of establishing your honesty, that's done fairly easily by keeping your word, not sharing secrets they tell you with others, and so on.)



Unconditional love is largely a myth, unfortunately.



Both messageboards and mailing lists fall into "same s**t different day" ruts pretty quickly in my experience, and need the occasional flame war to spice 'em up and make them more interesting.



Because many of them they venture out of their heads more often than you do?



I am not sure what are you referring to by steak and other things. Please clarify.

In this case, "streak" is an informal and colloquial expression for personal tendencies in this culture. "That person has a serious dishonest streak." means that they've got something in their nature that makes them tend to be dishonest, for example.

Impassioned oratory is self-explanatory... think of rhetoric. I've always had a tendency to engage in that, and a sociology minor only served to hone that tendency.

"Things that go bump in the night." is a colloquial expression for ghosts, spirits, and things like that.



When a person can correctly guess what number between 1-10 someone picked more often than chance would indicate, for instance.

When you meet a ghost who tells you his name and where he is buried, and then the next day you go to that unfamiliar cemetery the ghost mentioned, and find it exactly where he said.

When you become extremely angry with someone, and then suddenly all your emotion drains away, and you coldly state that they deserve X severity of punishment... and then it is as if you feel completely drained of energy. Shortly thereafter your emotions flood back in a rush, inducing euphoria, but your joints are so stiffened and hurting that even walking is a chore. Later the same day, all hell breaks loose in the person's life at that precise severity level.

Pick a day when the sky has discernable clouds in it, not a sheet of iron-grey miles thick. Watch a cloud. Focus completely on one part of the cloud. Now, think of hot stuff... blast furnaces, bonfires, etc. Watch that part of the cloud dissapate. (Focusing like that and thinking of cold things tends to make it grow, instead.)

My life is a strange one, I never said it wasn't.



Ah, but not all of it fails to work. If even most lower animals shy away from places which are haunted, what higher senses must humans be capable of?

My main quandry is why it only seems to work for some people who try it, instead of everyone who does. I've been privately testing and theorizing about this difference in my off time for years. I wonder if it is biologically linked... certain abnormalities keep showing up in the sample, one of the more interesting ones being patches of red and orange in the iris.

Widow's peaks are not a proper indicator, in spite of medieval lore... I've met many mystically inert people who have a widow's peak, and I've met many people who aren't mystically inert who lack a widow's peak. It seems to have no predictive value anymore, if it ever did.

Another commonality seems to be near-death experience. Not every person who is not mystically inert has had one, but a highly disproportionate number of them seem to have. Drowning, heart failure, overdose, particularly bad car accidents... the causes are legion. Sometimes people don't stay dead. The ones that don't seem to all have one thing in common... extremely strong wills.

There is also an observed tendency for this sort of thing to run in families... they did get that much right, in medieval lore. I've yet to meet one whose family is normal. You usually have a fair number of either other mystics, madmen, or both in their family line.

For all of that, it seems to be linked with a certain quality of soul, also. Not everyone who is born in such a family turns out that way, and when we die, the ghosts seem to exhibit a remarkable self-possession compared to most ghosts of the same age and era. My current hypothesis is that souls with this proclivity purposely choose to incarnate in families where this sort of thing will be, if not nurtured, then at least vaguely accepted.



I'm sure you could find enough aspies in with people like goths and so on to suffice, though?

Last edited by Hazelwudi on 22 Nov 2006, 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maybe its slight differences in the genes, that actually give a person greater succeptibility to hallucinations/delusions/fantasy/extra perception...

Not saying this is it for you, but it seems to make more sense than a dead soul following a person around.

I'm not your pear, I'm your peer (:P)

"I'd imagine it was easier in some ways, in such a society... being able to openly criticize people whenever you thought of it. Then again, I could see where it would be harder, too... people would do the same to you also. "

This is the beauty of it if you can find a good medium or forum, you can criticise others, and expect the same of yourself, learning much in the process.

The local goths, punks, and random "weirdos", lol. Surely your university has such a thing?



Well, she wanted to know more before she decided.



And their refusal to realize that you can indeed survive without it is... what? Feeling needed is nice... perhaps too nice to make people want to realize when they are needed no longer.

Why did they break up, do you know? I'm curious now.



Yes, because she wants to reinforce in her mind that she's needed, when she's not.



The problem being that women are generally not attracted to weakness, and even if they're willing to tolerate it, they then proceed to act as if they were the guy's mother and he a child. This is probably not what you want.

Perhaps you should consider adopting a cat or a dog? So long as you are kind to them, they tend not to condemn, attack, or try to control. That way, you can be as sensitive as you want around your four footed friend, and indulge that part of yourself that way.



Perhaps it's a matter of degree. Everyone occasionally wants to whine about their problems, talk about how hopeless they feel, etc. sometimes... but doing it constantly seriously puts other people off. Maybe this is something to be done only once in a rare, rare while.






I'm asking because if at some point you get so tired of her behavior that you cut all ties with her... well, starving on the street is a bad thing.



Nah, we'd do it to each other on purpose and make no secret of it. As you've no doubt guessed, my family dynamics were perhaps not all they could have been, lol.



You'd be amazed what time, rage, and disgust can do to a person. There was a time, when I was very young, that I did indeed give a damn. This was effectively burned out of me during a bitter, protracted four year period prior to their divorce. Pretty damned sad when the only person in the house who behaves as an adult is about four feet tall and 9 years old...



She can get a hotel, you know.



Even the longest journey begins with a single step.



Why not just be yourself, and when she objects, tell her to piss off because it's your life and not hers?



Change the lock.



It's about control of you making her feel validated and needed. That's her problem, not yours, so don't allow it to be made your problem.



I would start by increasing your control of your life... wouldn't you have more confidence that way?



That's why I recommended doing it in groups of people who are more tolerant of "geekiness". Does your college have any gaming clubs or things like that?



Don't talk about A, B, and C then, and try to strike a compromise between being yourself and stepping on too many toes.




I was meaning Sarah Roberts when I said it, and your attraction to her.



And yet, Sarah Jergenson viewed you as not confident? Well, she can't have it both ways... a guy who will give in to domineering people and a guy who won't. That's silly, lol.



You are no more defective for your social skills than I am defective because I've never gotten around to learning to play the guitar. If we could not learn, then we would be defective, but we can.



Don't even bring the topic of conversation around to there, then. Just talk about interests you share with the other person. Beyond physics, Aspergers, and Judiasm, what are your interests?



No, I had the worst of both worlds... the responsibilities of an adult with the rights of a child. I was doing all the damn work but still wasn't allowed to go anywhere or do anything, and had my life micromanaged. You have no idea how glad I was to get the hell out of there.



I assume you are biologically capable of feeling hunger. If you can, then why not eat when you're hungry?



Ok, let me put it like this. When you've gone more than a few days without taking a shower, it starts to look like you just aren't taking care of yourself. People react accordingly, and that's not how you want them to act.



From what I've seen, here's the four most common potential responses...

1) They look at you like you need your head examined and edge away.

2) They tell you that "it's just the way it is" and shrug.

3) They use it as an opportunity to justify their lifestyle based on evolutionary validity.

4) They tell you that living this way makes them happy, and to leave them alone.



Because it just makes you look like you're trying to "unsay" A because you realize that saying A isn't acceptable, not because you don't believe A.

For example, imagine that you're talking to someone who is going on about how he hates physics.

You respond negatively to this, and consider him to be a dumbass.

Later he comes up and says that he actually really likes physics.

What would you think?

... yes, that he still hates physics, but doesn't want to pay the social penalty for it... you viewing him negatively.



One continues a conversation in real life the same way you're doing it here, on this thread... by simply responding to what the other person said. I think you know how to do that already, you just a little fuzzy on how to generalize that skill to real life. Is it anxiety that gets in the way, or what?



Don't just settle for s**t... you'll end up feeling even more miserable than you feel now, and that's probably not what you want.




Ok then, why do you worry? You worry that they do not like you, is that it?

Last edited by Hazelwudi on 22 Nov 2006, 4:43 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Broadly speaking, the more interests and experiences you have, the more people you'll be able to hold a conversation with. Also, the more common a certain interest or experience of yours is in the population, the more people you'll be able to hold a conversation with.



I've found that most people don't care about this really... they just go on surface impressions, make a snap decision, and act on it.



If you'd lost all hope, would you even have come to WrongPlanet to start with? No.

I have considered the possibility, but too much of it is externally verifiable to write it off as delusions or hallucinations. There's different areas of talent, too... much as with more material endeavors, not all of us are good at the same things.



And troll for brawls! Woot, brawls!