Are women sexist against themselves?

Post Reply New Topic

You're on!

lol

This thread doesn't seem to have much brawl potential though... if I were going to troll for brawls right now, there's threads which are much more likely candidates than this one.

If they don't test their assumptions it implies that there is SOMETHING that makes them sure they are right, so I better pay attention. If they tested their assumptions, or at least operated based on logic, I won't be vieweing them as authority figures because I would understand where they are comming from and therefore know exactly what their limitations are. But when they are judging me based on something I don't understand, then there is nothing that would exclude a possibility that I am being judged in some kind of "fundamental" way.

In other words, if they act logically, then they aren't mistreating me because I am inferior. They are "only" mistreating me because of A, B, and C, AND NOTHING ELSE. But if they don't act logically, I can no longer point to A, B, or C, so the only possible interpretation is that they simply base their opinion on my being "inferior". Now if they can say I am inferior in general (rather than in some particular aspects) it means that they have some means of evaluating me. Thats why I am so anxious to find their logic because when/if I will learn what their logic is, I would no longer be forced to think I am judged as "inferior".



I agree



If people openly criticize me, this will be exactly what I want. I would rather hear reasons why they reject me, as opposed to simply being rejected and not knowing why. Like I said, if I know the reasons i won't think it is simply because I am "inferior" in general. Furthermore, knowing what I did wrong gives me apportunity to fix whatever I am doing wrong.



Yah, and I agree with it. I very much WANT people to tell me just what did I do to piss them off. This would give me a chance to improve myself. But I DON"T want them to go and talk behind my back, this only takes away any apportunity for me to change because everyone already expects me to be certain person.

But again, I am not speaking for Russia, I am only speaking for myself alone. Of course THEIR reasons were different, but I woulud most definitely prefer it that way.



Yah and that is what hurts me the most. When people assume my personality is immutable, it implies that I am fundamentally inferior to everyone else. If they know what is immutable and what isn't, then OF COURSE they act like they are in a position of judging me.

That is another reason why I prefer open confrontation, because this implies that I am NOT immutable, in fact I am asked to change. But when i am simply avoided then it implies that yes I am immutable.



Okay by word "bad" I really meant "inferior". I was just using words too losely.



Yah, and that keeps me wondering why I am one of aspies who haven't done that DESPITE what Brina Siegel told me in 1997 about being mild.



Again I am just being vague. By saint I simply meant someone with plenty of good qualities to counterbalance my defects, whatever these good qualities might be.

The point is that they don't know me, so how do they know I am not a saint? The only way to do that is to judge me based on ONE thing that happened during the few minutes they knew me. And if one thing that happened at that short period of time will outweight any and every good qualities I can possibly have, then it got to be a big deal, which is why i say they must have some kind of mysterious knowledge to be in position to judge me.




I understand this for people in minority, like aspies. But the point is that NT-s are in majority, so they are already validated over and over again, so why would they feel in-validated just by one person who is different?



I would try getting tenure as professor anyhow because that is my lifetime goal. Of course it is very competitive and quite likely I will fail, but that only reinforces the point that things would of been better if that mailing list happened some time after I had my ph.d.



It is due to the simple fact that I don't know what to talk about. Okay when ppl have conversation they might talk about their friends. I don't have any friends. Or they talk about news, and I don't watch news or read newspapers. They might also talk about movies, and I never watch any movies.

Now you can say go start doing some of these things. Okay fine suppose I will go watch movie this weekend. But this is not going to be the only movie in the world so chances are it won't help me any. Likewise, even if I don't have friends, I can people watch, but again how would it help me? Most likely they won't be friends of people in any of the clubs here at Michigan that I can google or whatever.

So the point is that in most cases they find what to talk about because they were having friends throughout life, so they got enough background. But I can't go back and change all my past. And right now it is a vicious cycle, the fact that I haven't had any friends in the past would prevent me from having them now.



I agree, and so are Jews. They are older in a lot of ways otherwise they won't be able to come up with such complicated religion, but they are younger in other ways hence that same religion has childish components to it.



I agree SOMETIMES thats the case. But there are other times when a person is more than willing to open up to ppl but others are too judgemental of their differences. I am one example of it.



I agree. But this is perfectly in line with my theory about jews verses autistics. I believe that what you said about having it easier to be around ppl like yourself is both an explanation for autistic-NT tension AND for jew-gentile tension.



The point I am trying to make is that may be most people ARE schizophrenic, which is why they envision that deity or whatever. They are simply having "shaddow" form of the disorder, i.e. milder than diagnositc threshold. From there I am going to say that may be everyone suffers from ALL mental disorders, and it is only a matter of degree. Once I made that point, then it is perfectly possible for the "degree" of affliction of "average" person to vary from culture to culture. And you can no longer say that they won't survive due to their mental disorders, because we ALL have ALL mental disorders. So having autism (or anything else) doesn't stop us from functioning, or else every single person on the planet would die.

So every single person on a planet is autistic, both Jews, Whites and Blacks, just like every single person is schizophrenic, bipolar, etc. But it HAPPENDS that Jews are more autistic than Whites and Whites are more autistic than blacks. Nevertheless, all three degrees of autism are too mild to have CLINICAL consequences. Nevertheless, the proportion of clinically autistics would also be higher with Jews, and these clinically autistics WOULD have difficulty functioning, but the point is that htey are still minority, albeit that minority is greater in case of Jews.

Okay, let me illustrate it like this. Lets take that Wired Autism Quotient test http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html

So in order to be autistic you need to have AQ greater than 32. Consider the following case (I don't have stat, I am just picking numbers at random) :


Race Whites Jews Blacks

Average AQ 17 22 12

Percentage of AQ>32 2% 6% 0.5%



So you see two things:

1)

a)The majority of Jews have AQ greater than AQ of whites
b)YET the majority of Jews are still NT

2)

a)The percentage of clinically autistic Jews is greater than percentage of clinically autistic whites

b)YET the percentage of clinically autistic Jews is still smaller than 50%



Now, 1b and 2b explains why Jews survived. On the other hand 1a and 2a explains their autistic culture. And yes even though the percentage of clinically autistic Jews is still small, autistics CAN influence culture since their differences can be interpretted as divine (such as with blessed fools in Russia). And of course the greater their percentage the bigger is the chance of such a thing happening. So blessed fools DO influence culture (see 2a) but they don't compromise survival (see 2b). Furthermore, due to somewhat higher AQ, the teachings of "blessed fools" falls into "fertil soil" (see 1a) but still these autistic TRAITS are under-threshold and thus don't compromise survival (see 1b).




And yes, I am saying htat autism that Jews have is very high functioning. Thats why I keep saying how autism raises their intelligence in science rather than lowers it.



I don't know where you get that from. I know that Jews aren't supposed to reproduce with anyone non-Jewish. As far as their multiplying like rabbits, not true either. There are only 20 million Jews worldwise.



Because NT members were raised in that culture from birth, and the nature of NT is that they adapt to social norms much more than autistics do. So, if social norms are autistic then the very nature of NT would force him to want to act autistic.



Like I said, the percentage of NT-s IS large -- in fact it is much larger than 50%. All i am saying is that the percentage of autistics is slightly larger, just so that they are visible enough to influence the culture.



Exactly, which is an evidence of their autism.



Like I said, Old Testament Hebrews are NOT the same as today's jews. Only 2 tribes of the Hebrews (southern kingdom) are known as Jews, the rest (northern kingdom) are of non-Jewish European descent. Since back in Old Testament times all Hebrews were fighting together, this have allowed for strong Europeans to "make up" for the weak autistic Jews.




I agree



Well, by the same argument, we shouldn't do physics because if not for physics then atomic bomb wouldn't be possible.

Well that is sarcastic statement of course. What I believe is that YES we should do physics, BUT we should convince ppl not to use it wrongly. Similarly YES we should know the truth about race but also try and convince ppl not to abuse that knowledge.

Simiply saying that all races are equal just to avoid racism is similar to lying by inventing wrong physics in order to make sure that no one will be knowledgeable enough to construct atomic bomb. So, if you REALLY think you are on the right about something (whether it be nuclear safety OR racial justice), you would be able to defend your point without resolving to lies.




What you just said only applies to post-holocaust christianity. The pre-holocaust one very much DID blame the Jews.



Wrong answer:) Before Holocaust, EVERYONE thought it was Jews who killed Jesus Christ, for almost 2 thousand years. The whole thing about "jesus was a jew" happened after the holocaust when ppl felt sorry for the jews.

In imaginary case if it was the other way around, and Romans were to be blamed for 2 millenia, then most likely HItler would of been killing Italians rather than Jews. In such a case, after the holocaust people would feel sorry for italians and say that it were Jews who killed Jesus.

In other words, the point is that whatever the deal is, the sympathy wouuld reverse it 180% which is the point I am trying to make here. Jews are weak so through sympathy it is reversed and they are in authority positions. Likewise, if Jews killed Jesus, again sympathy reverses it, etc.




But the point is that the reason some of the men today would complain is because OTHER WOMEN would judge them for what "all men" did. So I believe you you aren't the one to judge men. You only judge their behavior. But their behavior is influenced by someone else judging all men, so it is like a chain reaction type of thing.



Agreed. I guess I didn't know the audience back on that mailing list because it was the first time I ever got a chance to interact with other aspies. So my expectations were based on what I read in Donna Williams' book where she said that whenever she met other autistics she felt like they are "just like her" and finally she found ppl who understand her. So I was imaginning ppl on that list to be "just like me", which would include that they would like to theorize as much as I do, and also would be immune to any kind of prejudices just like I am, etc. I guess by now I learned it isn't the case. And this only keeps me wondering why did Brina Siegel said I am mild? From my perspective it is very autistic trait to be able to theorize without any kind of prejudice interfering, and I am able to do it much better than anyone else.



Remember, I am NOT saying that bigger brains are smarter because of neurons. I am ONLY saying that bigger brains are smarter because of autism, since autistics tend to have bigger brains than NT's. Now, autism is not the only thing that makes ppl smart, it is only part of equation. So thats why size is not all that matters. But since I am talking about STATISTICS among groups of MANY PEOPLE then despite other fluctuations STATISTICALLY bigger brain races have higher IQ.



I was referring to social part of environment in a sense of what social demands were, and they changed throughout history.



It isn't so much of habbits but it is more because I believe I am inferior I need validation from others in order to defeat that feeling. But in order to get validation I ultimately have to stay away from leader role in a relationship in order for my girlfriend to make all the first moves which I am not comfortable making.



I can't think of any topic to talk about.



Yah and that is precisely why I stress differences instead ... You see, when I KNOW what kind of answer ppl are looking for, I start to feel that if I will give them that answer it will sound too superficial to be true. And that is a different kidn of honesty from the one of keeping my word. Even if I always keep my word in a sense of DOING X whenever I say I will do X, how would they know that I am honest when I am talking about FEELING instead of DOING? When I do something, there is nothing dishonest about doing what the other person wants. As long as I actually do whatever I said I will do, I am honest, no problem. But when it comes to FEELING something, then to feel what the other person wants me to feel amount to dishonesty. After all actions can be checked, but feelings can't.



Well since I am Christian I won't go to goths. The kinds of clubs I would feel comfortable going to are either Christian, Jewish or secular.

I believe these might be weird in a different way from me. I mean, I don't think rock funs like punks wouuld be shy and quiet, so this might only make it harder for me to fit in.



Here is the point:

a)When I asked why did she judge me based on X, you said she couldn't help, because no one can control what they are attracted to

b)When i asked why did she ask me questions that revealed X, you said she wanted to know more before she decides

Now don't you see how a and b don't fit together. If she simply can't control what knowledge does to her, she would of avoided that kind of knowledge, let alone TRYING to find out more before she decides. So the fact that she doesn't avoid that knowledge implies that she INTELLECTUALLY agrees with the way her attraction works. In particular, if she goes off her way to find out about things like that, it means that she got to have some REASONS to want confidence in a mate beyond the statement she can't help what she feels.



It has nothing to do with feeling needed, it has ONLY to do with feeling that *I* won't survive. For example when she tries to push me to do X, Y, and Z differently, how would it help her feel needed if I were to do X, Y, and Z on my own, from the start? So it isn't about feeling needed, it is about feeling that *I* won't survive without X, Y, and Z.



Their conflicts go back to when I was only a couple of years old. Even whem my mom was in Russia, during some of the years she lived with her parents throughout a week, and only visitted my dad on weekends; although that was partly due to the fact that I had to go to school near the place my mom's parents lived. What she says is that the biggest problem was that he was very touchy and kept yelling at her for different kinds of reasons. Also she said that some little things grew into big things, one of them being that he needed window open when he slept and she needed it closed. But then there was a lot of friction between my dad and my mother's parents. For example back at the time when my mom lived with my dad, my mom's mother was living there too to take care of me, and this created some friction with my dad's mother who was beginning to have Alzhimer's disease in that she was jealous my mom's mom had a kep for my dad's appartment while my dad's mom didn't. These are just few examples; my mom's mom actually told me a long story of a lot of things that were going on between her and my dad but I forgot a lot of what she said. But most definitely it wasn't pretty, and it was before I even started school.

Then when I was 12 my mom went to USA, and at 14 I came to USA with my dad, and he lived there for 3 years. Over there there were a lot of friction over the fact that my mom was thinking that I should do A and my dad was thinking I should do B; both were meant to be in my best interest, but they often contradicted each other since they never agreed as to what they thought were best for me. So they kept arguing. Then when I was 17 my dad went back to Russia. It was partly because my mom couldn't stand all these arguments, but the other part was the fact that withough language he couldn't find adequate job. And I do have to say it is both parts because my mom still thinks of inviting him back to USA even though she is the one who wanted him to leave on the first place. They still talk on the phone every weekned and sometimes when I come to visit my dad in summer my mom comes with me. So yah basically there weren't any clear break, rather some kind of deterioration.



Yah but somehow it happened to be after I was nearly expelled from school. So yes it is about me. My objection, however, is that my being expelled is NOT because I was away from home and much more because I didn't make a transition from college to gradute school.



Like I said in my case showing weakness to women is the way I experience sexual attraction, so animals won't replace that. May be the way to satisfy that need is to get myself an LJBF chic after I already have a girlfriend, and that way I can use girlfriend to meet my desire for self validation, and use my "friend" as someone I can show my weaknesses to.

I guess if I only have one girlfriend that might still not work because my mind tends to give more credibility to ppl who reject me, so if girl A is my gf while girl B rejects me I would overfocus on girl B, which is why I overfocused on Anne's rejection despite currently being in a relationship with Megan Behrendt. However, if I have two EXISTING girlfriends then my perspective always changes because I see all the difficulties of keeping them from each other. So may be the best recipy is to have TWO real girlfriends, and one LJBF. Indeed, this worked back in winter when I was simultaneously dating Megan Thornton (DIFFERENT from Megan Behrendt) and Andrea Best while Down Ahern was the LJBF I was showing my weaknesses to.

So may be one way of going about it is simply keeping this scheme in mind. Whenever I feel like showing weaknesses to my potential girlfriend, just tell myself over and over that after she will be my real girlfriend I will have plenty of time to find myself some LJBF-s which would give me a lot of apportunity to be weak, but for now I should just make sure to do this first step right. Furthermore, I can also remind myself that having a girlfriend is far more important to me than the whole weakness thing -- after all being weak is something I can simply fantasize about on my own. So I guess my REAL challenge is to convince myself that my to-be-girlfriend won't be an exception to a rule of what turns women off no matter how kind she might be, and htat is the most difficult part.



How do you know it is her need to be validated as opposed to her actual opinion about me?



But I have to talk about A, B, and C in order for them not to be surprised when I can't hold conversation



No, Anne Lippert thought I was not confident. She felt that way BECAUSE Sarah Jergenson was sheltering me. But Sarah Jergenson never said I weren't confident or rejected me on that basis, she simply was controlling the way my mom was. So here it goes

a)Sarah Roberts never had relationship with me and only knew me on mailing list for two weeks. Yet I had crush on her I couldn't get over for couple of years. Sarah Roberts didn't know how to say f**k.

b)Sarah Jergenson met me two years after mailing list, and she had relationship with me for a year. Sarah Jergenson is the one who accused me of being disrespectful towards my mom when I described my behavior back in teenage years. Yet later on after she forcebly introduced herself to my mom and saw my mom's reaction she changed her mind to say the same thing you say that my mom is too controlling and I have to stand up to her. However, this didn't stop her from continuing to accuse me of wanting everything my own way. Furthermore, the truth is that Sarah Jergenson herself was controlling

c)Anne Lippert rejected me on the basis that I weren't independant because of whta I told her about my mom and about Sarah Jergenson.



How do you know I can learn them? Asperger is life long disorder.



If I don't, then they would expect me to hold normal conversatoin which I can't do, so I have to warn them about it.



I am also interested in Christianity. Actually this started off from interest in Judaism, and antisemitism in particular. Then in my research on antisemitism I ran on Christianity, and eventually I became Christian myself. Then I became obsessed about the bible and different interpretations of it. I am mostly attracted to Christian sects that have some Jewish elements to them, like Seventh Day Adventists who keep Jewish Sabbath, or Jehovah Wittnesses who reject trinity, or United Church of God who keep all Jewish feasts, Sabbaths, and kosher.

I go to Adventist club on campus and actually I have a few ackwaitants from there who don't appear to judge me based on my differences. But the point is that, even though I haven't asked, I would guess most likely they won't date non-adventists, and the same goes for the other cults. The only place I do have a chance to find dates is among Messianic Jews, with whom I identify, but the local Messianic congregation only has people 40+ and most of them are married.

As for enabling me to have conversation, none of this really counts because these interests would only make me have long debates the way I do now, which still won't be normal conversation. The whole point is that either I know NOTHING about a topic and have nothing to contribute, or I am OBSESSED about a topic and will debate it for hours, but nothing in-between. Neither of these extremes will enable me to have normal chit chat. To have chit chat I have to know a LITTLE bit about a LOT of topics, and this just doesn't apply to me.



I do feel hunger but it isn't that important to me. Even on my own, there are plenty of other reasons not to eat such as being preoccupied with physics problem. But Anne is still wrong because normally I do eat, it is just that I don't make a point of NEVER missing a meal.

The point, however, is why is it Anne's business? I am totally okay not eating, and SHE is the one who thinks I can't take care of myself.



Again, other ppl judge me on THEIR standarts without bothering to find out that in MY case it just isn't true. I know for a fact that I DO take care of myself even though I don't shower.



Okay, what if their best friend asks them this question so that it actually sinks through, what would they say to their best friend?



I understand what you are saying. But the context of that question was that you told me earlier that ppl would rather believe a pleasant lie than hard truth. So if they want to be lied to, then why won't they be willing to deceive themselves into believing me even in this situation?

The point is that I lie just as much as anyone else. The difference is that the other person would lie from the start, while in my case I would be overly honest from the start and then change my mind and decide to lie.

I understand that in my case it is simply harder to convince themselves of that lie because teh evidence is way too strong. But the thing is that evidence to my ABILITY to be honest is also strong or else I won't have said the honest truth I was saying from the beginnign.

So may be one way out is to take away the "social punishment" part and simply give me another chance.




On this threat I am going in circles, which isn't a normal conversation. Okay, I give myself credit for ability NOT to go in circles, because right now I am doing it for specific purpose. But the point is that if I go on straight line I would walk straight out the door since room isn't that big to start with (i.e. I don't have that many topics to talk about -- I can only talk about physics, autism, religion, and even each of these three topics only have very limitted audience).




Yes exactly. I worry they don't like me.

And I don't have that many



Are you sure they don't care as opposed to the option where they do care, but are overly confedent in their ability to predict the rest of the life.



I haven't lost all hope. After all I had girlfriends in the past so why can't I have them in future? The point though is that I am not ready to spend nearly as much time on dating sites as I did in the past because it already compromised my studies a big deal.



But I am not saying delusions/hallucinations. People with Schizotypal Personality Disorder don't have delusions or hallucinations either. And their beliefs in telepathy are also influenced by SOME kind of culture, although non-christian one.

Appart from that you should also consider the possibility that external factors are comming from the founders of religion. THESE people might have been mentally ill. They are still a minority BUT the quality of religion might assess the SIZE of that minority, and the bigger the mentally ill minority is, the more genes for the illness does the given ethnicity carry.

I think what they're judging you on is social skills and your apparent conformity (or more to the point, lack thereof) to a variety of social mores. Most people consider such things important, yes?



As harsh as it sounds, they don't consider it their job to do that, I think.



It is rare that one runs across an Aspie who openly wishes for more behavioristic thinking in the general populace. Hehe.



Because you haven't given yourself many opportunites to do so. When it comes to people, how people think, and how society works, there's only so much one may learn from books. The remainder must be learned by socializing, dealing with people, and so on.



In my experience, unless it is obvious that people stand to benefit from whatever it is you are wanting them to do, they will either not do it, or they'll do it in such a slipshod, half-assed way that they may as well not have bothered.



First impressions tend to receive a lot of weight, for good or ill.



There are more divisions than just Aspie vs. NT. They also divide based on race, culture, subculture, political persuasion, age, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status... the divisions are legion, really.



Look at it like this... you'll probably have an easier time getting tenure if you work on your social skills a bit first. Yes, it is unfair, but I find it that even in the academic arena one is not purely judged based only on one's work.



I don't like most movies either.... most movies either bore the hell out of me or piss me off. The news, though... why don't you watch the news or read newspapers? Don't you sometimes get curious as to what's going on in the world?



You hear what they like to talk about. Pick one of the things they seem to like to talk about most (one that you can tolerate) and learn about it. That way, you'll have something to say when the topic next comes around and you're in a knot of people waiting for the elevator or whatever.



The problem here is that many ancient peoples came up with complicated religions, structured societies, and the like, and didn't seem any more prone to autism than anyone else. Think of the Egyptians. Their religious beliefs were very intricate, and their dedication to building unrivalled for their day. But they didn't seem to have the tendencies you are thinking of, as a culture?



This is true, and in this case either one of two things needs to happen... one, that they find a social niche they can fit in, or that they learn what they need to learn in order to fit into the social niche they're currently struggling with.



I see what you're saying, but I still question the cause of the phenomenon.



I mean, they reproduced like rabbits in ancient times, not today. "Like the stars in the heavens", remember?



Possible, I suppose.




It could also be evidence of a certain elitism... let's be honest, every ancient people considered themselves to be the ones god (or the gods) like best. Historically, Jews seem far more resistant to abandoning this supposition.



I've always wondered at that supposition... you'd think that if most of the ancient population of Europe came out of the Jewish people, the religious beliefs of those ancient people would show at least some latent Jewish influence.



Yes, but without physics, a lot of beneficial technological advancements wouldn't have been possible either.

It sounds strange, but honestly I always thought the atom bomb is perhaps not such a bad thing. Nothing seems to deter two nuclear nations from coming into open conflict quite like the threat of mutually assured destruction. Had it not been for the fact that both the US and the USSR had the bomb, would the Cold War have remained a "cold war" or would it have rapidly escalated into a hot one?



Most people seem to instinctively dislike that which is different. What stops acknowledging various racial differences from turning into an argument as to which is better and then into genocide, if we go that route?



I thought they mostly blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus and didn't care so much about the marauding pre-holocaust?





If I remember right... did not the Jews hand Jesus over to the Romans, for (admittedly draconian) Roman justice? This is what I'm referring to. For cultural outsiders (the Romans) to want him dead is one thing in people's minds, but for his own people (the Jews) to want him dead is far more remarkable... it utterly defies the standard ingroup/outgroup mentality which most people have.



If I do not hold them accountable for the chauvinism of men I have never met, how can they justifiably hold me accountable for the "feminazi" crap they might have gotten out of women I've never met?



Because you are an individual first, and a category second.

Do you see what you are doing here? You despair of other people using categories, for they use it as an excuse to dismiss you... and yet, you constantly use categories yourself in terms of how you think of other people.

Barring difficulties with socialization... are you really much different, in terms of underlying thought processes?



Strictly speaking, I am not certain one can correlate autism with a higher IQ. What of the myriad autistic people who are not intelligent at all? (In fact, many of them are ret*d to one degree or another.) :/



Yes, but when you fish for validation, they just think of you as inferior, thus completing a vicious cycle.

Why aren't you comfortable making the first moves?



You overhear what those around you like to talk about... the news, politics, and current events, for example. Why not learn something of those things so you can contribute to the conversations around you?



Let me put it like this... if you mostly stress similarities, they may or may not reject you. If you just stress differences instead they'll almost certainly reject you. At least the first one gives you a chance of getting what you want... the latter course of action really doesn't. Pragmatism, yes?



Always honest about your feelings? No one is. The point is therefore moot.



It's not about really feeling things, it's about successfully putting up the social pretense of feeling it. Honestly, when a relative of an acquaintance of yours dies, do you particularly give a damn? No. Now, if the grief of your acquaintance somehow starts causing problems for you - suppose you two are working on a project together and the quality of his work falls in the toilet as a result of grief, leaving you to pick up the slack - you give a damn, yes... but only insofar as it inconveniences you.

It's not "warm n fuzzy", but it's also the truth. The trick is to successfully pretend it isn't.



You're Christian... you said before you are Jewish? (Or are you Jewish by ancestry only?)

What's the matter with goths? ... well, actually, I can think of a fair bit the matter with them, but they have their good points too. lol

The main thing which annoys me with goths is that they miss the point. Yes, everything ends eventually, and everything dies. Including me. Including you. The point, therefore, is to enjoy things while you have them. Many goths seem to mope instead of taking the opportunity to enjoy things while they have them, and then mope some more once they are gone. This only renders them doubly deprived in the end.

Try the gaming geeks then? And what sort of music do you listen to? I'm wondering, now.



I never said there weren't other factors as well, I merely stated one of them. Think of it in terms of evolution, I think mankind's evolutionary past has a lot to do with that particular mating preference. If he won't manage his own life, won't stand up for himself, and won't defend her and any children they might have, from an evolutionary standpoint he would have been a very poor choice for a mate.





Oh come on... if you're already doing X, Y, and Z, she'd merely nag you to also do A, B, and C. You've said as much before.



You have a hard time getting turned on, without feeling weak compared to the woman? Do I understand you properly?



It is a lot of effort... too much effort I think... to keep them from finding out about each other. Is it not so?



Because I've seen this same pattern more times than I care to count, and the odds heavily favor that interpretation. lol

Yes, it is sometimes intermingled with legitimate worry... and yet, your mother is the sort who tries to be all things to all people, is it not so? The second she takes her hand off the steering wheel of everyone's life, she thinks something terrible will happen?



So learn to hold a conversation then! lol



How do you know I can learn them? Asperger is life long disorder.

There are cases of Aspergers people learning enough social skills to "pass" for normal though, at least in bursts. They have little instinctual feel for it... it's more a rote memory affair, but it is possible.



You're capable of holding conversations on Aspergers, at least in text. This thread shows as much. I would assume you are capable of holding conversations about physics, as well. Now, to broaden your subject matter, and to transfer it to real life...



Well, now you know what you must do...



Ah yes, the "I just realized it's 10pm and I've forgotten to eat today. Damn it." lol



Because most people don't enjoy the notion of those they have any regard for whatsoever starving, silly.



... look, there's no nice way to say this. But people find oily hair, stinkiness, dirt, and so on to be off-putting, alright?



Perhaps talk about evolutionary theory, assuming the friend was an intellectual? (and it is difficult to imagine such a person having a friend who isn't)



Because you've already smacked them upside the head with the unpleasant truth, lol. Too late.



You need more... conversational branch-off points, yes? I mean, for most people at a university the conversation can start in physics, go to Stephen Hawking because he's a prominent physicist, go to crippled people because Stephen Hawking is crippled, go to a crippled person they saw the other day because all this talk of cripples brought it to mind, then go to disability payments from the government because some cripples get them, then go to the government in general, then to politicians, then to the war in Iraq, then to political left vs. political right, and so on.

This is how most conversations go on, without any one topic being beaten into the ground yes?





... which only serves to make you more anxious, which only serves to make your behavior seem more stilted. This is a vicious cycle you've got going here...

i haven't read all of this, but would just like to say that perhaps some women may be sexist towards themselves. if so however, this would be the result of living and being brought up and conditioned in the patriarchal male dominated societies that exist these days. what would you expect?

Just because a man is confident does NOT mean he is against women, etc... It is sad when people feel otherwise.

Steve

sadly i think women can be there own worst enimes to each other and them selves . in a western socilty women are taught to be gentle and calm while men run amok !lol not really a man fights to relsolve problems , often women solve problems by bitchness that lasts for a long time . the saddest thing is that the sister hood is just as lost as the brotherhood of man .

Yah and thats what I find offensive. If you play a football game then yes you see how "strong" a person is by looking at whether or not they meet a "challenge" of playing by the rules. And that is what social interactions really seem like. You don't care waht is inside a person or whatever, you just want to see if they can meet a "challenge". Otherwise, why is conformity so important? Why not just say whether they can do it THEIR way?



Yah and that is what I keep dwelling on. You see if a human being is any different from comptuer then they would fluctuate, so it won't be wise to judge them based on any moment, including first impression. What if I simply happened to have a bad day during the first time they happened to meet me?

So what is going on inside my head is that I keep thinking htat the fact that I am being judged by first impressions implies that somehow I AM a computer and I AM the same from moment to moment, and this is what opens a door for my judging myself on black or white bases that I have to be "inferior" for failing their tests.



Okay as far as race, I am White, they are White, so everything is fair. Well I guess I am Jewish but I was never judged by that parameter. As far as political perswasion, I am not that much into politics. I do have some political views that follow from my religion, but these are the things I keep to myself and/or online. I guess they did slip through on that mailing list but that falls into "online" category, so I am still saying I never said any of these things to anyone face to face.

Regardless, given that the topic of the discussion was about being judged for my aspie traits I simply don't see how would all these other things be relevent here? YOu were saying ppl don't like aspie traits simply because they don't like ANYTHING different from themselves in order to feel secure. Then I said why would they feel insecure after all they are in a majority anyway. And then you said that it isn't just aspie vs NT but actually a lot of other things, such as political perswasion. So thats where I say that these other thigns arne't relevent to the aspie traits thing, hence I am going right back to the previous question.



Well for one thing, the only TV I have is in California where my mom lives, but I go to school at Michigan. I guess I just don't feel like paying money to buy another TV especially since I am not getting supported this term. Plus even if I had TV I probably won't be watching it either due to my rather hectic situation at school.

But anyway good suggestion. I guess may be I can go to the hallway of Student Union and watch TV over there from time to time.



I guess number 1 thing they talk about is each other, and thats where I don't know where to start because in order ot learn about it I need to have friends to start with which I don't, and this makes it circular. Number 2 and 3 thing they like to talk about are probably either news or sport events on campus. I guess I might try and leanr about these. Although I am not sure WHOM to talk about it once I do learn. For example, I have plenty to say about Christianity but I don't talk about it to strangers or whatever. Now if something were more popular then I guess it would be easier to find an audience, but still talking to strangers about it would be equally silly. But anyway since I believe the most popular topics are news/sports, the most tangeable thing I can do about it is join a running team since I used to be top runner back in high school. But the point is that back in high school the team was pretty bad which was basically why I was the top runner. On grand scale I was 29-th out of 105. And now in University of Michigan I checked their scores the first time I got here and they run much faster, so I definitely have no luck over here. As for simply joining team WITHOUT winning that would only ruin my self esteem even more. As for any other sport, I never played it, so not sure how it would work out. So since "sport" thing won't help me lets go for "news" thing in terms of most popular subject. I guess I might learn something about it. So suppose I learned something about news and started talking to people, and then it turns out that there are other things that I have no idea about, which is quite likely since other people had many years to "learn about news" and I would have had only a couple of months. So the question is am I really going to get to know more people that way, or am I going to weird them out once they see how ignorant I am? Okay fine you can say you never know till you try. But then again another question is WHOM am I going to talk about news anyway? I can't talk to strangers about htem. So should I join some clubs? If I do, then I would most certainly weird people out. After all if i am joining a club specifically on such and such problem in society then supposedly I know A LOT about it which I don't.



But Judaism is far different. Okay it says that on Sabbath since you can't do "work" you aren't allowed to carry more than so many pounds and for such and such distance. And they are VERY PRECICE about these numbers. They also have disputes where rabbis would sit for hours and debate the interpretation of one quote in Talmud, and it is often the quote of this nature. For instance I heard there was a dispute as to whether or not it is okay to pick your nose on saturday. So Egyptians might have been suphesticated in their buildings or whatever, but I am sure they didn't have any of these kinds of disputes. And also as complicated as their religions were, I am sure most of their commandments weren't of the nature of exactly how many grams are you to carry on sabbath.



The point is that I am not making it black or white.

1)There is no line between autism or NT, just like there is no line between any other disorder or lack thereof. Therefore every single person is autistic to some degree just like every single person suffers from all other disorders to some degree. If such is the case then by necessity every person is either more autistic or less autistic than the toehr one (just like every person is either more schizophrenic or less schizophrenic, more bipolar or less bipolar, etc). And in this case a number of traits that we think as normal personality traits are really due to autism just like a number of other personality traits can actually be manifestation of other mental disorders. Now we all agree that personality traits contribute to culture. So if personality traits are really shaddow manifestations of mental illnesses, including autism, then the same applies to all cultures, including the Jewish one.

2)Again since nothing is black or white i am not saying it is ONLY autism that contributes to one particular culture. It is combination of things. And this combination has A LOT of things -- in fact every single thing on a planet since like I said everyone suffers from shaddow signs of every single mental disorder. So in case of Judaism autism happends to be affecting it MORE than other things. If it weren't autism to top off the list, it would of been something else, like bipolar or schizophrenia. If EVERYTHING is on the list, then math says that SOMETHING has to be number 1. In case of Judaism one of the top few happened to be autism, and I am sure with other cultures it would be something else.



They had many children from the same wife. Even today religious families (both Christian and Jewish) do that.



Like I said personality traits might actually be shaddow signs of mental disorders. And it is possible that ellitism is a shaddow sign of autism since being "different" would prevent a person from relating to others which would make him wonder why and come up with some answers. If it is an individual against society, the answers he would reach would likely go in dirrection of insecurity. But if it is a group of people against other groups of people, then the answers they would reach would go towards ellitism. But in both cases the root of the problem is being different and inability to relate to others.



Well Hebrew resembes German language a lot. So since German language is obviously younger that is an evidence right there that Germanic ppl might well have been one of the lost tribes. Also, there is an evidence among some of the Irish people and others that they keep some hints of the Jewish traditions which again hints to some possible relation. Also the coronation stone of England is the same as the stone that Jacob used.

Last but not least, take Christianity which is based on the Old Testament, Judaism. Well, of course it was spread by Jewish apostles, but the apostles chose their audience based on their descent from ten lost tribes. Jesus said "do not go into gentiles but go to lost sheep of house of Israel" (Matt 15:24), and so in book of Acts chapter 16 and other parts there is evidence that god prevented them from preaching in some places, possibly based on their descent.



Okay, as a theoretical physicist I simply don't believe in refraining from expressing a point of view because of its consequences. But since you want to talk about it, then I would say that one person such as myself talking about something on one particular mailing list won't lead to genocide. I also would think that any of the "protected minorities" aren't likely targets of genocide within at least the next few decades. Furthermore, since there has only been one holocaust but there were lots of slaveries and spanish inquisitions, history shows that much more common alternative to genocide is simply discremination. But if we talk about that part of it then take all the people arrested for "hate crimes". So that is also a discremination, and it is no different from the other one. One discremination is for your race and the other is for your point of view. In neither case you hurt anyone. Or if you insist that having a point of view you do hurt someone, then what about all the points of view that would, for example, blame Jews for conspiring to hurt us (i.e. the ones that are being "forbidden" on the basis that htey are "antisemitic")? Whether they are valid or not, if you are consistent with your idea of protecting yourself against anything "harmful", you better take them seriously. After all if it is okay to hate ppl for political perswasions *IF* they are potentially harmful, then why is it any less wrong to hate people for religion (such as Judaism) *IF* it is potentially harmful? Then of course you say it is "wrong" to say that a certain religion is potentially harmful because that view itself is labeled "harmful". So now this borders into a silly pinpong game, whoever got the first ball to label things as harmful, that one has a run. And if we are at that, then guess what would happen when a ball is at the other shoe, might well be another holocaust. So, what I am trying to say is that as much as you believe that expressing certain opinions "might lead to genocide", having a thought police might lead to genocide just as well. So, I would personally just go with "honesty is the best policy" and just allow a free speach.



yah but Romans didn't want to kill him, they only did so in order to appease Jews. Ponte Pilat kept asking a crowd of Jews to allow him to release Jesus but they kept insisting htat they wanted to see him crucified. At the last resort he simply washed his hands to say that he is innocent of his blood because he didn't want to kill him but he decided he can't prevail. And to that the crowd answered "let his blood be upon us and upon our children".



I understand what you are saying. But your explanations of what does or doesn't fit the human nature totally denies history. For 2000 years people were fine saying that Jews killed Jesus and no one had a problem with the fact that it is within "the same group". However, after the Holocaust, WHEN THEY WERE SORRY FOR THE JEWS, only then they said that it were Romans who did it, and the statement "Jesus was a Jew" is merely an excuse to feel sorry for the Jews after the holocaust. So, if you look AT FACTS what you see is that Holocaust, as opposed to anything else, shapes people's views. And the irony is that what allowed holocaust to happen on the first place is probably hte fact that Jews were autistic which is also why they wanted Jesus dead (after all he healed on Sabbath contrary to their autistic rituals). So in essence the whole persecution of Jews began due to their autism, but then this very thing had stopped it since, again due to their autism, they allow holocaust to happen instead of fighting or running away, hence the world felt sorry for them afterwards.



I agree I make assumptions just like others do, but I am different in a sense that I am willing to test them. Yes on that list I assumed some things about the audience, but the point is that I weren't saying "they are GOING to do X", I was just saying "I HOPE they would do X, now lets see if that is the case". If other people were also saying "lets see if that is the case" or "lets try it out" then as a special case of doing so they would stay around me long enough to see if I am trully as bad as they think I am. I for one never end contact with ANYONE no matter what I think or feel about them.



Autism has many different forms, remember? Some forms are correlated with lower IQ, while others with higher IQ. Because, despite the fact that so many autistics are mentally ret*d, one can't deny a certain PATTERN among the "gifted" autistic. Furthermore, at least in case of Asperger, it is definitely separate from other forms of autism in terms of studies that show that people with Asperger's have left hemisphere more developed than right one while other autistics have it visa versa. Now as far as Asperger is concerned, then yes it is correlated with higher IQ. So if I go with the theory that the form of autism that affects bigger brain races is strictly Asperger, then yes it all works out. And also studies shows that Asperger is 5 times more common than autism, it just wasn't recognized till recently which is why ppl don't know much about it. Finally, it is quite possible that there are some other conditions on autism spectrum that are similar to Asperger but are not Asperger (after all there is also HFA) and they too make a person gifted. So thats why, just for a sake of generality, I was saying "autistic" rather than "Asperger" races. But I was still implying strictly the form(s) of autism that wouuld make you gifted.




Because I am scared what if they won't be welcomed. I also don't know when or how soon the other person expects them.



What you were saying is exactly my point. Since the whole thing is not about the inside but about outside, why are they judging by this anyway? Okay fine they need SOME means of judging a person so if they don't have good means (since no one is open) why not go for "bad" ones? But okay, how about other good means, such as the fact that I am Christian, I don't smoke, don't drink, don't believe in sex before marriage? And, at least in my case, these things ARE honest since I am doing it FOR ME, and not to please anyone. Since NO ONE is honest about hteir feelings, then why not jsut drop it alotgether and just focus on these lifestyle things? If you judge people by things which NO ONE is honest about this becomes unfair game where you win if you are better liar!




I am Jewish by birth. As far as religion, I am "between" Judaism and Christianity, namely I am Messianic Jew. The rest of my family is strictly Jewish and NOT christian. I am the only messianic in my family and I keep it from them. I became messianic as a result of the obsession with racial issues, which grew into obsession with antisemitism and the research into the origins of antisemitism led me into Christianity. And then once I was studying up on Christianity I converted once I ran onto the whole issue about hell which basically lead me to scare myself into believing.



I don't know much about goths. I *vaguely* know htat some kind of religion is associated with them, and if thats the case then the fact that the religion is non-christian would be enough to rule them out.

I like any music, really. This isn't the issue though. What I am trying to ask is whether I will find people that have the right personality that would lead them to accept me for me or whether it be the opposite that they would look even harder for things I don't have, such as extroversion.




It isn't really "being weak compared to the woman" rahter it is simply "being weak". Because I definitely do NOT get attracted to strong women, I get attracted to weaker ones. So since I want both myself and my woman to be weak, this would go more closely with "beling weak LIKE a woman". I guess the way I get attracted to women is that I want to be "just like her". So if she is a woman I have to be a woman and women are weak so I ahve to be weak. Thats basically what goes through my head.



Well like I mentioned earlier the only place I look for women is online and because of it in many cases I find women that half an hour or even an hour a drive from me and since I don't drive we only see each other once a week, so thats make it easier. In fact, at one point I had TWO girlfriends from April and one of them stayed around till August and the other till September. They never found out about each other.



She is not trying to be "all things to all people". She only worries about myself and her mom. Frankly, her mom is 87, so the fact that I am in the same category is probably because thats how horrible my Asperger comes across.



It is easier said than done.

[/quote]


You're capable of holding conversations on Aspergers, at least in text. This thread shows as much. I would assume you are capable of holding conversations about physics, as well. Now, to broaden your subject matter, and to transfer it to real life...[/quote]

Okay i will try doing that.




And what if the friend then asks that if they know it is evolution, why are they not trying to resist their traits since these factors that played a role in evolution are no longer relevent to today's society?

[/quote]


Because you've already smacked them upside the head with the unpleasant truth, lol. Too late. [/quote]

Sounds like the game of ball to me.

[/quote]


You need more... conversational branch-off points, yes? I mean, for most people at a university the conversation can start in physics, go to Stephen Hawking because he's a prominent physicist, go to crippled people because Stephen Hawking is crippled, go to a crippled person they saw the other day because all this talk of cripples brought it to mind, then go to disability payments from the government because some cripples get them, then go to the government in general, then to politicians, then to the war in Iraq, then to political left vs. political right, and so on.[/quote]

And in order to do that I need KNOWLEDGE of all these anicdotal facts. And simply learning about a topic (your earlier suggestion) won't work because as you have illustrated I need to know about A LOT of topics. For instance how would watching news would help me to know that Stephen Hawking is crippled?

This only works on males who don't realize that secretly, the female sex drive is more powerful than a man's (I know, hard to believe, but true IMO).

Once a male exerts a little willpower and knows that she isn't doing us as big a favor as we thought, it is easier to bring this relationship back to an even ground affair. After all, male/female relationships could (and should be even) a give and take partnership; with mutual attraction and admiration ("love?") being the basis. I know, its just my opinion, and I am probably too old-fashioned for the majority of the crowd, but we are all entlitled to our opinions, aren't we?

For eons this notion of "you're one of us" was extremely important to one's survival. If you met people who weren't of your group or tribe, they were more apt to be hostile than friendly. Not necessarily because they were "psycho cannibals" or whatever, but because they were competing over the same resources as your tribe and there often wasn't enough to go around for everyone.

Even today, those who conform to social expectations make people feel more comfortable than those who are outliers to those expectations. Except in the most backward/lawless areas, it might not get you killed, but it still will cause people to view you negatively. When you're like them (or they think you are) they can rely on their social scripts to interact with you... what to say, what to do, and what to expect. When you are not like them, they have to put in a great deal more effort... and frankly, most people are lazy sods who are unwilling to do so. This tends to make them ignore you or otherwise "write you out of the social picture" instead.



Occasionally people have a bad day and make a bad first impression based on it, but if this person is a very nice, sociable person the rest of the time, eventually nice and sociable will override the bad day impression. Also, friends of his can help explain it away with something going on in his life right now. "He and his girlfriend broke up this morning... he's just having a bad day." which tends to soften the bad first impression a bit.



It doesn't have to do with some sort of logical validation of your way of life. It's far deeper than that, and probably one of the most longstanding parts of our psychological wiring.

I daresay you've got it too. Why else would you be at Wrong Planet, if not to be around people "like you"? Why would you express reluctance to hang around goths, citing possible religious differences for the reason? Heh.



You had to take history classes at some point in your educational career, did you not? So don't you know at least something about the past? And in your case, if you really don't know that much about American history at least, you've got a perfect excuse... you spent a lot of time in Russia as a child.

As far as current history and modern politics... well, take the war in Iraq, for example. Surely you've heard something of this... I don't think it's possible to avoid hearing of it. What's your opinion on that? Saddam was executed just a couple days ago... what do you think about that?



The Egyptians were more content to worry about things like minute differences in stone width instead, heh. Their tendency to precision was more ... practical in application?



I think we've gone too far as a culture in the attempt to medicalize personality types, myself. It seems to be the new American pasttime, at least in educated circles. :/



... and multiplied like rabbits, which is what I was originally saying. The old testament tribes grew to gigantic sizes.



How does it resemble the German language? It seems to more resemble Latin to me.



Was Jesus talking about the lost tribes, or was he talking more about local Jews who had began to adopt Roman ways?



As a scientist, the notion of not being able to speak about such is irritating, yes. I don't think there's a sociologist, a social psychologist, or an evolutionary psychologist which wouldn't agree with me on that, either. Nevertheless, when I look back on the sweep of known history and what atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of Us. vs. Them, I cannot help but think that perhaps we should err on the side of caution.

Do you recall the absolute furor which occurred in the academic community when the book The Bell Curve came out? Let's be brutally honest, shall we? It said absolutely nothing regarding racial tendencies that most of us don't already know. But if you got the mob to act on that... *shudder*

People have massacred each other for thousands of years, and our increased technology only increases the potential body count. Think about WWII. All jokes about "prussian efficiency" aside, look at what they did... a country, about the size of the US state of Arizona. Look at the body count they managed to produce in only a decade. Their communications systems were inferior to modern communications, as was their transportation system and weaponry. But look at the body count. Yes, this is what people can do in a decade, with primitive automatic weapons, trains, and gas. And what could be done today, if we bent even a portion of modern industry to the task of producing corpses rather than goods? *looks sick*



Yes... and don't you find it strange that the Jews would be so desirious to see one of their own crucified, while the outsider culture (the Romans) weren't enthusiastic about it? Most people do, myself included.



Nah. In medieval Europe, people definitely had a problem with it... the notion that the Jews killed Jesus was one of the primary reasons Jews were persecuted in medieval times. Remember, the Catholic church held most of Europe in an iron grip back then... the notion was basically "God favored the Jews above all others, and sent his only son to be born as a Jew, and then you, his own people, go and get him killed."



Yes, but do you have an alternative? They have an everpresent "us" to hang out with, rather than having to resort to outsiders in order to socialize at all. You do not.

It's not about really feeling things, it's about successfully putting up the social pretense of feeling it. Honestly, when a relative of an acquaintance of yours dies, do you particularly give a damn? No. Now, if the grief of your acquaintance somehow starts causing problems for you - suppose you two are working on a project together and the quality of his work falls in the toilet as a result of grief, leaving you to pick up the slack - you give a damn, yes... but only insofar as it inconveniences you.[/quote]



Also, bear in mind that what you see as good things (Christian, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't believe in sex before marriage), others might well see differently. There are a lot of people who would translate that as "puritanical, anal-retentive and can't relax", for instance.



Pretty much.



A great many of them are atheists, agnostics, or pagans, yes.... but why should that rule them out? Because they do not believe as you?

... do you see what you're doing here? Like me vs. not like me? Heh.

In my experience, gaming geeks are usually introverted.



What bothers you about the stronger women? I'm curious now.



She certainly tries to be "all things" to you and her mom, now doesn't she? How much of her self-concept is bound up in that? I'm wagering the answer is "a great deal." hehe



Could you have had the same discussion as you've had on this thread, but only in a face-to-face way? I type precisely as I speak in real life. Could you not do the reverse... speak as you type?



They'll shake their heads and wish you luck, all the while thinking that it's not going to work.




The game of ball? I'm not familiar with this idiom. Explain?



Every once in awhile he pops up as a human interest story. *shrugs* But in this case it wouldn't matter whether it did or not, because you already know about physicists.

Dissection is fun, isn't it?

As fun as this argument seems to be, in the end, people are people, aren't they? In this case, both sides are right. Why? Because everyone believes different things. You can't classify the habits and beliefs of multiple different people under one heading; there are too many factors that, while seemingly small, make a big difference.

Some women choose men merely due to their physical appearance. Some choose men who are their intellectual counterparts, supporting them where they need it most. Still others find something else they consider important in a man, and pursue that avenue.

Men are the same way. They (we?) choose the woman we wish to live with based on our own standards. Who is anyone here to say that those standards are wrong? And even if they are "wrong", so what? People will live life the way they choose, and there is little anyone can do to stop them. And trying to change how people choose to live is arrogant, not to mention ignorant.