Is "catch a predator" really a catch for aspies?

Post Reply New Topic

It is commonly believed that aspies have very rigid mind, and it can "never" changed no matter how much anyone tries; thats why most NT-s give up on them. I believe that this is a big misconception. As an aspie I know that I will do exactly what NT-s want me to do, if only they were to just tell me what they expect. But, since I know "almost" what they expect, but not exactly, I have to guess my way as I go along. Then, every time I make a bad guess the NT-s assume that my mind is "rigidly stuck" on the "wrong" way of thinking, so they won't give me another chance.

Now, to be fair, most of them don't call me wrong. They typically say that I shouldn't change for anyone else, I should be comfortable just the way I am. And, I realize, that most of you aspies ask for the same thing: most of you are saying you don't want to change either. But here is a catch: what if I do'nt give a s**t whether I do A or B? What if I simply dropped a coin and "decided" to do A simply because the coin "happened" to fall on one side? In this case, I don't see anything wrong in starting to do B simply because someone else "wants" me to do it. It is plainly ridiculous to be told that I have to CONTINUE to do A in order to "be who I am", if the truth is that I don't give rats s**t one way or the other!

I believe that what motivates people to tell me that I should be "who I am" is PRECISELY their misconception that aspies have a very rigid mind. In light of this, they ACTUALLY think that due to my mind rigidity I would be very uncomfortable if I were to change. Thus, they care about my comfort enough to tell me "just be the way you are". Never mind the fact that *I* don't care about my own comfort, and *I* am willing to change. So, ironically, they care about my comfort a lot more than I do. But, at the same time, in a name of my "comfort" they neglect the things that ARE, in fact, important to me!

Now, to be fair, I DO come across as "rigid" in my communication with people. So it is not trully their idea of an "aspie"; it is the way I come across independently of that. But what they don't realize is that I can "act rigid" just for the hell of it, UNTIL I reach "a limit". Once the "limit" is reached I am more than willing to back off. After all, being "rigid" is not who I am. I was simply testing people! Why? Well, there might be all sorts of reasons. To get attention. To let out a steam. Who knows? NONE of the things I supposedly gained (such as "attention") are one bit important to me. I simply did these things because I didn't give a s**t!

Let me give you an example in order to illustrate what I am talking about. Back in 2006 I was a ph.d. student, and I had a very bad reputation. As a result, I was given a letter that, unless I get an advisor by June 1, 2006, I would be kicked out of graduate school. But, due to bad reputation, most people didn't want to be my advisors. But I found the few that were willing to consider me. Now, their work was closely related to mine but not exactly. At the same time it was related to mine a lot closer than most people. So that is exactly what I told them.

But I would FIRST go on and on about the DIFFERENCES between our work in order to prove to them that I am "honest" (after all, if I was a liar I would have lied that I want to do EXACTYL what they do), and then AFTER THAT I would tell them "nevertheless, you are much better match to me than most for such and such reasons". Then I would twist things in order to make a "fake connection" between what I PURPOSELY made NOT to match his research and his actual research.

This, however, only lead to negative result. During the "firt part" (where I was over elaborating the differenes) a professor decided that I was rigidly stuck on my own way of thinking and that I am unwilling to do what they want me to do. Then, during the second part (where I "twisted" things to say that despite the differences we want to do the same thing), the professor decided that I am SOOO stuck on my own logic that I "was hearing" whatever I wanted to hear when he was telling me about my research.

BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT I KNEW FULL WELL I WAS TWISTING THINGS; I SIMPLY "DECIDED" TO DO IT ON PURPOSE. So then when professor would refuse working with me I would yell at him exactly that: "look I know exactly what i did, I was doing it on purpose, because I was testing your patience. But now I know better, lets start over". But he never would!

Now, what would he say? He would tell me that I should be "comfortable who I am" and in particular I should do the kind of research that *I* like to do. So, OUT OF CONCERN FOR ME, he wanted me to find a professor that is a better match. But the truth is that I don't give a s**t what I will do. I was just saying whatever I thought would "work" to keep me in school. As long as it "keeps me in school" I can sweep floors if they want me to! Anything and everything I "elaborated" was COMPLETELY fake, since I decided that it would make me look genuine. Well, the moment I realized I "decided" wrongly, I was more than willing to back off and, within seconds, come up with a different story (and be just as rigid in that OTHER one), but professor won't want me to.

Now I know that this sounds like a lie, but this isn't. After all, what is the definition of "wanting" anyway? Eveyrone who "wants" something wants it for a reason. So, if for example you don't have a job you TRULLY want to do and instead you are applying for some job you are less interested in, and yet say in your application "I WANT to apply for that job", is this a lie? In reality, if you want to be really strict, most people DO "lie" in the interviews; but they have better skills to make IMPRESSIONS that they are telling the truth by being "consistent" with the lie. As an aspie, I, too, pretend to be "consistent". But I overdo it, so instead I make an impression of being RIGID. But I am not!! ! This is only my poor interview taking skills.

Now this brings me to "catch a predator" show. Just the quick review to those who don't know what I am talking about: basically they hire a bunch of actresses to pretend that htey are minors on the internet. Then if the adults begin to talk dirty to them about sex, they invite them to come over. Then when they come over actresses greet them and pretend that it is a jenuine date for like first few minutes. Then they would say they "have to go" somewhere. And then Chriss Hansen comes and confronts them.

Basically he will read out the tapes about various things that they said to the decoy and ask them why would they say it to a "13 year old". Usually most guys try to deny things. They say they were juts "fooling around" and that they wouldn't really have done anything if there was a real 13 year old. Chriss Hansen doesn't buy it. Then, finally, he tells them who he is, while the cameras that were recording them all along get out in the open. He then tells them that if they have anything more to say they are welcome to, otherwise they can leave. And then when they leave the police arrests them.

Anyway, duriong the "Chriss Hansen" part of the movie most guys say they won't have done anything they were "just walking buy" and stuff like that. Now, most of you think they are liars; WELL I DO NOT. Because when I fail my interviews with professors I ALSO tell them that everything I said was just "fooling around" and I iddn't mean to say it -- and I MEAN EVERY WORD OF IT WHEN I SAY IT. You see, contrary to what most people believe about aspies, my mind is NOT rigid. It can adapt to a situation. The moment I hear that something was not welcome, I NO LONGER WANT IT, and my not wanting it is SINCERE.

Now, if you are psychoanalyst you would say that I have a "subconscious need" to lie, and my lying "subconsciousness" convinces my consciousness that it is not a lie after all. That might be true, but in this case, there are might be tons of other things about your subconsciousness that you might not know. So if people want to be consistent, they have to make a mandatory psychoanalysis to EVERYONE they come in contact with, just to make sure that there was no desire DEEP DOWN YOUR SUBCONSCIOUSNESS to, say, pull out a gun and shoot someone. In this case, if Freud is right, most men should be in jail since, deep down, most of them want to kill their fathers and marry their mothers! So, logic goes, they should go to jail for "intended" murder and "intended" leud conduct!

Now, lets go back to people in that show saying that they would not have done anything were there a real 12 year old. Well, HOW DO YOU KNOW IT IS NOT THE CASE? You see, if you are talking to someone important then you edit and re-edit everything you say. But if you don't think it is anyone important, wouldn't you just change your mind on your moods?

There are DOZENS of possible reasons why they might not have done anything with a "real" 12 year old. One example: suppose they are more visually oriented than verbally oriented. So when they see number 12 on a screen they say "its okay it doesn't bother me", but when they see a real 12 year old in front of them, they seee how SHORT that 12 year old is, how SKINNY she is, they hear her voice and see how immature she acts, that they immediately get turned off.

Or here is another example. Suppose someone wants to get a lot of attention. As we all know, people on the internet to all kknds of things to get attention: deliberately post profanity, engage in flame wars, etc. So what if a given person wanted to SHOCK a 12 year old by saying they want sex, JUST TO GET REACTION. In this case, they knew TO BEGIN WITH they would not have actual sex. By the way, back in high school I remember people talking ALL THE TMIE about going to the womans bathroom and having sex with girls. I am SURE that NONE of them done it, it was just their way of fooling around.

Now, most people wont buy into the above because they assume that pedophiles are OBSESSED with little girls. Now, don't you see an analogy this and the way most professors that I was OBSESSED about my particular line of research? I guess this shows us that the NT mindset is that people who are "out of line" (whether these be online predators OR aspies) can not possibly change. They assume that "normal" people ARE changeable but abnormal are NOT. Thus, if you make good impression on people you can always screw it up, because "as a good person", you are changeable. But, once you make a bad impression, no one would give you an aportunity to make up for it, because, as a "bad" person, you are not changeable, so why bother?

Now, lets be fair: In both cases (whether it be online predator or my interaction with professors) it LOOKED like the person in trouble was "rigid". In case of professors, I was talking FOR HALF AN HOUR about my obsession, so that was an "evidence" for my rigidity of mind. In case of predators in that show, some of them drove four hours which again supposedly shown their determination.

But in my case I simply KNOW that I talked for half an hour because that is my conversation style: obsessive. The fact that I talk about certain topic for half an hour does not mean that this topic is SOOOO important that I would rather be expelled from school than do research in anything else. I can easilly see myself having a very long monologue on ANYTHING just for the heck of it!

Similarly, a "predator" who drove for four hours could have simply been bored! For example, one of my hobbies is exploring the area. Now, if I have a lot of work to do, I can't honestly say to myself "I will spend 4 hours that I don't have just to explore an area". Instead, I come up with an "excuse" to do that. For example, I might say "I need to find a place to study and all the caffees around me are a bit crowded, let me look for quieter place". But that is only an excuse. In reality I know full and well I SIMPLY want to take a long walk.

So who knows, may be these predators are like me in this respect. Their hobby is driving. But they can't be honest with themselves and just drive for nothing. So, instead, they come up with an "excuse" to drive, which is to meet 12 year old. Then, they might try and speak dirty to that 12 year old just to shock her or get attention or what not, without ever meaning to do any of it.

Now, of course, I do not KNOW the above was in fact a scenario. All I am saying though is that the question whether they WOULD have done something is very psychoanalytic, and no one should go in trouble based on psychoanalysis.

Going back to my situation with professors: suppose they are right, and suppose DEEP DOWN I don't TRULLY want to do their research. In this case, shouldn't it be a bonus point that I am willing to do something I am not trully interested in doing? In fact, isn't this the very definition of responsible adult, which is normally thought of as a positive trait?

That is why I am pissed off at the entire interview process. A BIG part of an interview is to psychoanalyze people in order to see whether or not they TRULLY want to have that job. But who the f**k cares what they TRULLY want? No one can see the deepest thoughts in your subconscious -- people can't even know their OWN dark deep secrets, let alone the people they try to hire! Why not just see whether or not the person has skills to do the damn job. If he doesn't TRULLY want to do it, but is willing to do it ANYWAY, all the more credit to him! It means he is responsible adult!

This, by the way, reminds me of something else. I was in a conference in Italy last September. I used this conference to meet my parents. Now, my father basically ruined things for me, because when I tried to interact with other people at the conference he kept steping in and insisting that I do what HE wants me to do. This is a topic for a different thread (and by the way I am really mad at him -- I have a strong suspicion I would have gotten a new post doc if it wasn't him ruining things for me).

But anyway, at one point he insisted that I should have a dinner at 6 PM. Now, at 6 PM only snack places were open. The places with real food were opening at 7 PM. But my father wanted me to have a REAL food, at 6 PM. So he kept forcing me to look for places -- and he threw this scene right in front of one of the people who specifically stayed after conference in order to talk to me, and my father was basically interfering.

Anywya, that guy pretended to ignore it and just follow along with what my father was doing. But at some point when my father saw a closed door and walked around a parking lot to see if there is a door that would open, that other guy said "they might call a police". Then he jokingly added "because you are not supposed to be hungry at 6 PM, you are supposed to be hungry at 7 PM".

Now, I realize that this last sentence was a joke, but this joke HAPPENED to be right on when it comes to the way NT-s operate. In particular, he didn't say "you are not supposed to look for food"; he said "you are not supposed to be hungry". So imagine this scenario: suppose we are NOT looking for food, instead, say, we are going to the library. So, here we are, in the library, reading some books. But then our stomachs start to make hungry sounds. And then librarian calls a police because, based on the sounds our stomachs make, they decided we are hungry, and we are not "supposed to be" hungry.

Or imagine even better scenario. Suppose instead of calling a police a librarian says to us "you must be hungry, I want you to break into the locked doors of such and such closed restaurant and steal food". Then we respond "we might be hungry, but going to jail is a lot worse than being hungry, so let us wait till 7 PM and eat then". Then librarian responds "Aha, so you are NOT concerned about the damage you would do to the restaurant, you are concerned about not going to jail, you are so selfish, I will get you to jail now!". Then we say "no no no, we have misspoken, we really meant that not going to jail is just one of the reasons, but the other, even more important one, is that we dno't want to do a damage to a restaurant". Then librarian would say "how can you possibly misspeak? What you first say is what is REALLY in your mind; you only changed your story because I have confronted you, so I don't belieev a word you are saying". And then the librarian would call a police.

Or now imagine yet another scenario: suppose librarian DID believe us that we have concern for the well being of the workers at the restaurant. But suppopse, instead, the librarian tells us that it is very important for us to be comfortable being "the way we are". So if our body tells us to eat, we should "be comfortable about it" and break into restaurant and eat. Then, when we are not buying tihs, the librarian PHYSICALLY draggs us to the restaurant and FORCES us to break itno it (say, librarian moves our hands to make us break into restaurant). And, every step of the way, the reason is NOT that they want to get us into trouble. It is simply that they care about our well being and it is very important TO THEM that WE eat as soon as we are hungry.

They care aobut us even more than we do! We knoew we are not hungry enough to be in such a hurry to eat, but THEY think it is sooo important for us to eat that it is wroth it. But, at the same time, they don't seem to care at all about us going to jail. Isn't it strange? They care about our needs to food a lot more than we do and yet they don't care about other aspects of our lives.

I have a theory: I think when decoy in "catch a predator" show tries to entrap people, getting them into trouble is not her intention at all. She is simply sooooo obsessed about LOVE that she to her LOVE IS EVERYTHING, and she loses track of more mundane things, such as them getting into trouble with a police. You know, she so much LOVES them that the few minutes of seeing them in person is SOOOOO much more important that it totally worth everything else. Of course, Chriss Hansen and police are not nearly as naive as she is, so they are using her naivette for their own purposes. But, as far as SHE is concerned, she is just all about love; too bad that her obsession with love fell into the wrong hands.

Ironically, however, she is right: for SOME of these people, the few moments of seeing her IS more important than their police record! In fact I saw a number of shows where the potential predator had suspicion it was a "cop" on their chat log and YET have turned up ANYWAY. In fact, in one show there was even police next to a neighboring house -- for some other, unrelated, reason -- and the predator walked in anyway!

I believe people like THAT are the ones that convince the society that the "abnormals" have rigid thinking. But the fact that THEY do does not mean everyone else does as well. In fact I saw one show where a predator was more then willing to walk away, but the decoy kept trying to perswade him to come in FOR HALF AN HOUR (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EFDbYBUTzQ ) As you see, unlike other people, for THIS MAN the police record WAS much more mportant than love. Yet, decoy was SOOOOO obsessed with LOVE, that she loved HIM a lot more than he loved her back, and thats why she kept pushing him to come in. Yet, despite her profound love towards him, she has forgotten his more mundane concerns. You know, love can do things like that for you sometimes.

Anyway, as you see SOME of these predators (such as the ones who suspect its a cop and then come anyway, or the person who walked in despite seeing a police) care about love more than police record. BUT SOME DOES NOT MEAN ALL. Yet, society decides that some means all. So if there is a predator with different preferences, it can't possibly be! It only means he doens't understand himself! The SOCIETY, on the other hand, HAS to be right: he HAS to be just as rigid as the other ones, no matter how many times he insists otherwise. After all, society is "normal", the predator is not. NORMAL people are the ones who are right. Always! So a "normal" person understands the intentions of someone abnormal much more than abonrmal understands themselves -- even though normal person knows the abnormal one only for half an hour, while abnormal person knows themselves for THEIR WHOLE ENTIRE LIFE.

As I said before, it is typically assumed that abnormal people are more rigid-minded than normal people are. For that reason, if someone does a "normal" thing, they might not necesserely mean it. But if whatever is done is abnormal, then they sure as hell mean it!

Let me give you another example to illustrate this point. I FINALLY got my ph.d. in 2009 (by the way I got it from THE SAME place that tried to expell me, which is a good example of them being wrong in assering I would "never" succeed). So, in 2009 I started a post doc. Now I did not get with my advisor socially. For example, when I just came I was supposed to take a blood test but I was afraid to -- because back in USA they warned me against the needles used in India. Also, I was forgetting to take showers. My voice was loud, and so forth.

Anyway, eventually I went to a director and asked him whether or not I was in trouble, seeing that my advisor wasn't talking to me. Then my advisor came to my room and accused me that I was "making allegations" against her. I responded that I did NOT mean to make an allegation -- it was not about her; it was about ME. My assumption was that she is an authority figure, just like a director is, so it never even crossed my mind that she was "wrong". On the other hand, i was a SUBJECT to that authority, so the question was strictly how was *I* doing. For instance, if a student asks a teacher what grade did they get, the question is NOT how strict a teacher is; the question is how well a STUDENT did.

Now, this flew completely over her head. Instead, she simply stated that she was "one of the senior faculty members" and I was "just a postdoc", and THEREFORE it was an allegation. Now, don't you see how ironic tihs is? Even though she didn't pay attention to what I said, she HAPPENED to use the SAME premise I was using to reach the OPPOSITE conclusion!

Anyway, lets try to understand HER logic for a second. Why would her being a senior faculty imply that I was making allegation? Isn't a "senior faculty" the LAST person you would ever want to make allegations against? Well, the answer to this question is simple: both me and her agree that making allegations against senior faculty members is abnormal. Now, the assumption goes, people who get EVEN REMOTELY NEAR doing something "abnormal" are very rigid in their thinking. Therefore, the rigidity of their thought implies that they won't just stop "remotely near" the abnormal behavior; they will go all the way and DO it in the strictest sense of the world. Therefore, it is simply not possible that I did something "remotely resembling alegation". The only possibility is that I went and did the ACTUAL allegation in its truest sense. Hence her conclusion.

I believe that issues like that are very much relevent to aspies. The main problem with aspies is NOT that they DO stuff towards NT-s but rather their body language that gives away their ATTITUDES. Now, if you want to psychoanalyze things, may be NT-s are right. After all, if NT-s were to say exactly what they think, the most likely accusation against apsies would be that aspies don't seem to be interested in other people and they are only interested in themselves. Now, guess what: this accusation might be right!

Every time I ever said "I am interested in other people" what I really MEANT was that "I know that I am being denied such and such benefit becuase I didn't come across as interested, so now I want to pretend that I am in fact interested; how dare you assume that I don't have skills to pretend that; I have just as much skills to do EXACTLY what you want me to do and pretend to be EXACTYL the person you want me to be if you only give me a chance. So why is it you are not giving me a chance?"

So who knows, may be with other aspies NT-s are also right in their judgements. Perhaps aspies TIHNK they want to communicate REALLY because they want an approval, which is ONLY about themselves, and NOT about other people, and that is what NT-s are picking up on.

But the real issue is THIS: who cares what anyone TRULLY thinks. You can't psychoanalyze yourself. In fact, 99% of the time I am SINCERE in saying I "care about other people". I have admitted what I just did a paragraph earlier ONLY because I have psychoanalyzed myself for few years. Otherwise I wouldn't have knoewn this.

So, since NT-s are not put into situations where they are forced to psychoanalyze themselves, who knows, may be NT-s don't have pure motives either; they just get away with it! So, in light of this, why judge aspies for their MOTIVES that you need psychoanalysis for? Judge people by their actions!! !

Now, as far as actions goes, yes, "judging by actions" is not exactly in my favor either. But here is a catch: I was never given an APPORTUNITY to show in actions who I really am. Perhaps if people were to let go of their assumptions about me based on my alleged MOTIVES my ACTIONS would be completely different. For example, I won't be avoiding talking to everyone because they all hate me!

Need to read all of that and respond more later on, since it's so long. I'm at work. I need to look over it more when I've free time but I'm highly interested in the subject matter, for sure. Initial thought, though: I've no recollection of Asperger's or autism being mentioned on To Catch a Predator or its associated website, Perverted Justice, therefore no publicity in the show/website that anyone had AS, unless you know otherwise.

I relate to your comments about people misunderstanding what a rigid mind is. And, yes, they often want me to express a preference when I have none. I usually want to say, "Let's do whatever I can stand that will put you in the best mood. Because if you don't like what we're doing, there's just no chance that I will."

NT people tend to think that it is possible for a range of opinions to be simultaneously correct. This is socially convenient, because they can talk to a lot of different people and pretend that their beliefs are much more similar than they actually are. But it's based on what feels like sloppy thinking and half-truths to me. But it really doesn't feel like hypocrisy to them. I haven't figured out yet, frankly, how I can sincerely mimic "flexible" thinking. If I try, it comes off as badly as your interviews. I have had conversations that felt just as baffling and just as unfair.

I think there people on the spectrum need to understand the concept of entrapment very well. I worry especially when I think about Shaun Rossington, a kid with Aspergers who was beatned to death by a group of seven kids. Why did they do it? He was a "paedo." They got a thirteen-year-old girl to offer him sex if he would meet her in a secluded place at night, then they beat and kicked him to death. They didn't mean to kill him, they said, but claimed he deserved it anyway because he was 21 and was going after an under-age girl.

So I see what you mean about the Predator show, even though I've never seen it and never want to. We are easy to fool because of the difficulties we tend to have with social cues. Because our responses are unusual, they make people suspicious. And I think you are right that someone on the spectrum might be less successfully fooled by an actress pretending to be young.

We've got to keep ourselves safe by avoiding situations where we are likely to betaken advantage of or acting in ways that people are likely to interpret hostilely.

I thought you were going to say that some of "predators" caught on the shows seemed to be Aspies?

I have seen a few on that show that reminded me a bit of myself.

nevermind

I didn't read it, but I'm quoting just for kicks.

I changed one word in the quote this time, can you find it?

The OP is too long I am not going to bother finding it. Plus I deleted my reply thinking all of a sudden it was irrelevant what I said because what I said might have been irrelevant since I didn't read the whole thing.

could somebody summarize this mans book that he wrote please, its too long.

to answer your poll no, they dont act like aspies, they are acting typical of the situation they're in, they know they are in deep s**t so thats why they act all nervous and somewhat odd.

Meh, I'm a 30 year-old Aspie, and work around teenage girls daily as a teacher. The idea of a sicko doing something perverse to those sweet, innocent people really makes my blood boil!

Preying on the defenseless and naive is, for lack of a better word: evil. I see no similarities.