Naturally selecting "bad" people

Post Reply New Topic

Most of my life I was dealing with "average" people and the issue was that these "average" people could not tolerate my Asperger. This year, for the first time in my life, I found people who can tolerate me, despite my Asperger. But the issue is that these people are not worth having around. They are ruining my life because something is wrong with THEM.

Could it be more than just an "unlucky coincidence"? Could it be a pattern that something must be really different about the NT in order for that particular NT to be able to tolerate an aspie, and that exact thing that is different about that NT makes that particular NT not worth having around?

The two people I have in mind is my current girlfriend as well as a professor who is trying to help me find a post doc.

As far as girlfriend goes, she is very high maintence. Yes, when I tell her "I am busy I need go to back to my studies" she usually lets me go. But I don't have balls to be saying it all the time. And the problem is that if I don't say I have to go, she can chat with me for hours and hours. Being a busy post doc I can not spend that much time.

Now, I know you might tell me that it is an "aspie" thing to want a time to oneself. But in my case I am pretty convinced it is not. Having been with other girls I know that, by NT standard, I am pretty insecure and I usually need more attention than NT-s are willing to give, just to be sure they are not "leaving" me. Yet, with my current girlfriend (as well as the previous one) the situation is the opposite: SHE wants attention FROM ME, to the point that all of my insecurities are long gone, and I just need her to leave me alone so I can do physics.

As a proof that it is a problem with HER and not me, she was sexually abused as a child and she admitted that she gets very insecure around ALL guys and A LOT of people have said she is high maintence. She also is probably borderline because during "good" times I am the best thing she ever had and during the bad times I am the worst. Each time she hopes to stick to her respective views of me, and this alternates every few days. Whenever we have a fight she wants to "never be with me again" and when we don't have a fight she wants to marry me (even though she never met me).

Now lets talk about my professor. What happened on this front is the following. I am diong my post doc in India. I managed to allienate everyone because of my Asperger. So, as a result, I am not getting an extension for the third year and I have to leave once my two-year term expires, which is just few months from now. Again, because of my Asperger, I did not see a need to network until very recently and, therefore, I don't have any social connections that would help me get a next job.

So I asked a person at the institute nearby to arrange a postdoc for me, and he agreed to do it. Now, on its own it is a very good thing. He didn't even know me. I simply shown up to his institute without any email and phone call and just asked him to do something out of the blue. And, surprise, surprise, surprise, he agreed! I know from my experience with others that 99% of people would have said "no" at best and would have gotten scared at worst.

But, is he productive in doing what he TOLD me he would do? No! And that is what brings me to the topic of this post. Could it be that his personality difference is a reason for BOTH saying yes, AS WELL AS not being productive? If so, then perhaps that is the fate of an aspie: the only NT-s that tolerate an aspie have problems of their own so that the life of an aspie gets screwed up in some other way.

I first approached this guy in the beginning of december. What we agreed to do is that he will file a proposal to some grant organisation so that they would substidize him hiring a postdoc. At first he told me that we would "finish this proposal with tight deadline of 2 weeks". So I expected that we would be done by mid-december. Then few days later I asked him again to be sure of an exact deadline. And, guess what, he DDIDN"T REMEMBER he ever told me about "tight deadline of two weeks"!

Then I pressed him to ask what IS the deadline? He told me there is no deadline; they review the proposals year-around. I then asked him how many times a year do they review? He said two or three times a year. I then told him that if it is two or three times a year, then there IS a deadline, namely, the next meeting! I mean, if he won't make it to the meething that is comming, I would have to wait another half a year, and by that time my Indian visa would expire.

He then agreed to find out when the next meeting is. He was going to call some people to find out. But then he kept not calling them, even though he was saying he would call them "within half an hour" each time I asked. Eventually, one or two weeks later, he called them. He told me that they said they meet on March. They also said that there is no sharp deadline, but if he would submit a proposal "in the beginning of January" he would be safe.

Now, as we all know, right now is no longer "beginning of January". It is "mid Feburary". And guess what, he STILL has not submitted proposal yet. The last thing he told me is that they meet AT THE END of march so it is still well ahead of time. But the problem is that I LOOKED IT UP and actually they meet on March 1, so I don't know where he pulled that they meet at the end of march.

Now, every time I call him and ask him when will he be done, the best I hear is "within half an hour" and the worst I hear is "tomorrow". Yet, I been calling him the whole months like 5 times a day and he is still not done. At least last two weeks (or even last three weeks) he kept saying that "tomorrow" is a SHARP deadline. But he is still not done!

Every time there are excuses. Sometimes he is sick, other times computer gets crushed and yet other times there are some events (like his grandfathers 100 year birthday). It is amaising how so many different tihngs "conspire" to make him late!

Now I realize that part of the issue might be me. Perhaps no one else asks anyone do do things under such a time pressure. But at the same time, don't you think that at least part of it is him? I mean, look, he is 40 years old, and still not married. Also, he is devote Hindu and he meditates every day. While he can put off his work, the meditation time is NEVER put off. Likewise, "having tea" with one or two people is NEVER put off either. He would interrupt whatever he is doing in order to "have tea". He was one of the invited speakers to a conference and he didn't attend simply because he had a slight cold.

Also, during one of these days he was going to finish something "tomorrow", he didn't do it because it was a holiday (and no, it was not a HIndu holiday or anything like that). So I asked him why is it so important for him to observer a holiday? And he just told me that someone said to him that if he would work during the holidays he would "become a robot" and he doesn't want to "become a robot". Come on! Can you imagine this guy EVER "becoming a robot"? I don't think it can EVER happen with that particular guy.

Now, what is even more interesting is that a couple of days ago I went to one of the professors at my school and I asked him whether or not it is this ugys personality that he is acting that way. Now, this other professor told me that he is "one of the finest gentlement he knows", but he didn't directly answered the specific question I asked as to whether or not tihs guy procrastinates. So do you guys think it is something specific to my Asperger that tends to "freeze people up" this way? Or do you think that guy DOES have a problem and my aspieness is what forces me to stick to these kinds of people, since no one else would tolerate me? What do you tihnk?

How did you manage to alienate everyone else?

As for your girlfriend, some women are clingy.

As for this guy, he obviously doesn't intend to do what he said he would for whatever reason. Maybe he is having personal problems, or maybe it's a cultural thing. According to a website on Indian etiquette...

"The word "no" has harsh implications in India. Evasive refusals are more common, and are considered more polite. Never directly refuse an invitation, a vague "I’ll try" is an acceptable refusal."

And I do believe this is true to a point as I recall an anthropology instructor who specialized in Indian culture that the proper way to decline beggars was to use a term which roughly translated to "later," instead of "no".

If you want a straight forward culture in the future, try Israeli culture.

Frankly, I have no idea about "everyone else". What I DO know is that I allienated the professor who invited me (no not that guy; it was a female professor). When I allienated HER, she conveyed to me taht I allienated everyone else as well. This resulted in my isolating myself because, presumably, no one wants to talk to me anyway. As a result, I had no means of finding out whether what she said was true or not. I suspect it was not. After all, when I started walking around and complaining about my current situation the typical response I get is that they don't KNOW me. At least in one occasion the person literally didn't know I was here for a year (he thought I just arived), so it wasn't just him being polite. But in other cases it could have been them polite.

Anyway, here is a separate discussion where I described in detail how I allienated that female professor http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt151914.html



That is what the other professor first thought when I asked him. However, after that other professor called him, he told THE OTHER PROFESSOR also that it would be done tomorrow. After that the other professor assured me that he actually was planning to do ti, and was NOT being polite.

Also, the other evidence that he is not just "being polite" is this:

1) He actually wrote a long proposal that he is about to submit. I know he did because he keeps emailing me the updated copies

2) He talked to the director of his institute about it, and the director gave him suggestions on how to modify his proposal (for example, his director told him to add another room for the student, besides a postdoc, and also to add something to requested budget, and so forth).




That is actually a very interesting poitn in another context. I have been scammed in India. But what pisses me off is that the scammer was NOT doing it for selfish reasons. He done it to help his orphanage. So, aparently, he thinks he did a good thing by scamming me. He assumes that as a "rich American" I have moral obligation to help his poor orphans and if I don't do it willingly, it is a moral thing to force me to do it by lying to me. Little does he know that not all Americans are rich and actually I am quite poor.

Anyway, going back to the issue of saying no. The way he scammed me is that I wanted my American credit card payed and he said he will "definitely" pay it if I help him buy some piece of land which will help him get some donations from people to build a church and he will pay me from these donations.

Now, LETS GO BACK TO YOUR TIHNG ABOUT SAYING NO. COuld it be just a language barrier:

FIRST PART OF CONVERSATION (LITERAL WORDS)

MYSELF: Would you help me pay off my credit card?

SCAMMER: Definitely! You just have to first help me buy a land

TRANSLATION INTO INDIAN CULTRUE:

MYSELF: Would you help me pay off my credit card?

SCAMMER: Of course not! You are the rich one, YOU should help ME. Here, give me such and such amount of money to relieve me from my poverty

SECOND PART OF THE CONVERSATION (LITERAL WORDS)

MYSELF: So are you going to give me money back that I payed you?

SCAMMER: I am trying my best, but unfortunately people are not giving. There was a flood, so the donations they were supposed to give me, went to help flood victims. But I will keep trying to give you money back

TRANSLATION INTO INDIAN CULTURE:

MYSELF: So are you going to give me money back?

SCAMMER: No I won't. Our life is very difficult in India. Just look at the flood we just had! Therefore, the money that you gave us, you OWE us anyway, and we have no reason to give it back to you.

I mean seriously. Do you think scammers KNOW they are lying? I seriuosly doubt that. I think scammers consider themselves honest. It is simply that Indian culture is not straightforward. Thus, he told me exactly what he thinks, but he done so in a "polite way" which is precisely what confused me. What do you think?




Funny that you mentioned Israel. I happened to be Jewish by birth (although I accepted Jesus as an adult). Do you think TIHS might be adding to my Asperger when it comes to making it difficult to interact with others? Do you think my Jewishness and my Asperger work together in making me take tihngs in literal, straightforward, way?

Why would any stranger offer to pay off your credit card for you? I mean, supposing it hadn't been a scam, would they not have lost money?

What happened was this. He was running a messianic church and that is how I found him (but it turned out just a small group). He wanted me to help him preach. I declined, because there is a rabbi my mom knows and I didn't want to accidentally run into him since I don't want him to find out I believe in Jesus. But later I had a second thought "what if he was going to pay for my preaching, then it would worth the risk since I need money to pay credit card". So I then asked him directly this very question. He said he won't be able to pay me then either, because he doesn't have a money; but if I help him buy a land which would help him earn money (since others would see a land and donate for him to build a church there), then he would most definitely pay me.

And yes, he was going to pay me MORE money than I give him: I was supposed to give him 4000 to buy the land and he was going to pay me back 4000+15000 (the 15000 is a debt on my credit card). Now, the reason he would not have "lost the money" is that he would have gotten A LOT MORE from donations to build a church. Since donations, presumably, ONLY became possible BECAUSE I helped him buy a land, that is why, on total, he was going to GAIN money, EVEN IF I were to GAIN money as well. The people who would presumably "lose" money would be the ones making donations to build a church.

Asking for money from a church to preach in the first place sounds a little materialistic to me to be honest, but yeah, if he agreed, he should have honoured it if he could afford to later on.

You did make a calculated risk though, in that he told you how he was going to repay you (through donations); the rate of pay back then depends on if people are donating or not, which isn't a very secure form of income (especially India- not renowned for its material wealth)

I'm just curious, why did you keep on giving him money (you wrote that you did in your other thread)?

The reason I kept giving him is that after he was unable to pay me back what I gave the first time, he kept thinking of new ways of paying me back, which always required me paying more money. The new amounts of money were all of the order of $500 -- $1000, while what I payed the first time was of the order of $4000. So thats why I kept grasping at straws hoping to get back original "big" amount by paying new "smaller" amounts.

Ah. That definitely sounds like a scam then. Sorry you lost so much money- hope it at least went on the poor and not straight into his pocket.

I actually feel the opposite. If it went into his packet then at least there is a possibility that he knows that he did something wrong but did it anyway. If thats the case, then, perhaps, he didn't make any judgement against me as "rich greedy American"; he simply doesn't care one way or the other, so at least I don't have to take it personally.

On the other hand, if it went to the poor, then it is a PROOF that he thinks he did the RIGHT thing. After all, he had no benefit out of it, so why would he do it UNLESS he thinks it is a right thing? And in this case, YES, I DO get offended by his belief system. The only thing that would make it a "right thing" in his mind is that "rich greedy Americans are OBLIGATED to help the poor". This is very dehumanising. First of all, it assumes that ALL Americans are rich (which is not true in my case). As humans we are all different, aren't we? So why would ALL Americans be equally rich, without exception? Because they are not humans! They are just money-making-robots, and, as such, it is their OBLIGATION to help the poor. Now, if the car that is "supposed" to drive doesn't drive what do we do? We force it to drive by pushing it. So, if an American is just a money-making mashine, then, similarly, he should be "pushed" to produce money.

Now, as you see, this belief system is very offensive. And THAT is the reason I would prefer if his money were to just enrich his packets rather than help the poor. If he just inreaches his own packets, then perhaps he doesn't have any of these beliefs; he simiply doesn't care about right or wrong. On the other hand, if he helps the poor then he clearly DOES care, and that would be the ultimate proof he DOES hold all of the offensive beliefs I have just outlined.

i had the same problem but i found this video help me out alot:
Aspergers and my description of NT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfn4eDoJDUs

I understand completely about alienating people. Talking too loud or being overwhelmed by crowds, and burnout has been an issue for me. The flakiness of not saying no is what I call "level shift", wherein a neutral response becomes negative and negative becomes really really bad, and this happens here too and not just in India. Did you build something that works? That will certainly doom your career if you remain an academic. In a sequence of, say 60 or so events, whatever you did in lines 1-59, if line 60 is "it works" then line 61 will be "so what?". Hence my disdain for academia. OK maybe I'm being a bit sarcastic but sometimes this is how things come down.

That scammer story has all the makings of rottenness. Whenever religion comes up, red flags should pop up warning you to be careful. Scammers will often hide behind religion because they want you to be more trusting. Many examples of this can be found among prisoners and so on.

How long have you been talking to your girlfriend, and why haven't you met her yet? Don't send her money if she asks for it.

I would say that your main problem is gullibility, and that NTs are picking up on your vulnerabilities and taking advantage of them.

I would stop trusting anyone who needs money or asks for it. Since it seems like you have been screwed over a few times over money, I would stop trusting people when it comes to it. Do not loan them any money.

I would recommend that you become a Rotteneer. By visiting Daily Rotten regularly you can obtain an important part of your secular education that can help you become less naive. The news stories featured there may disturb or upset you, but you'll start to see patterns, some of which will fit these various situations in which you may find yourself, and you'll have a better idea what to do and what not to do. Not just the news stories, the site also has an extensive map of linked articles about various weird topics including religion and interesting information about famous people, and you may find interesting patterns in that.

Two things

1. I don't lend people anything because I must come off as someone that doesn't care. I don't really but I also don't want people stealing my stuff so I just don't lend it out.

2. I alienate everyone I am around. My family hates me, my former friends hate me, none of my ex's are my friends. When people get close enough that they start needing (expecting) stuff from me I get scared because I will let them down. It isn't a might. So when people start expecting me to help them, hang out with them, date or marry them, I emotionally check out and generally move on. It has been hard but when I do things the other way I let people down and then they start hating and judging me. I cannot deal with these things.

The loud voice have been an issue for me too. The croud thing has never been an issue, I am generally indifferent about my environment so none of it can bother me.

But the funny thing is that even though I am, myself, indifferent, other people assume that I am not. For example, in the past when I tried to talk to the professors to find a research topic, I went on and on about my own stuff, and didn't EXPRESS interest in theirs (notice, I used the word EXPRESS -- in other words, I WAS interested, I simply dind't bother showing it). So then THEY became over-caring about me. They trully didn't want to FORCE me to do something I am not interested in doing, so they refuse working with me. ANd then I went like "I don't care, I will do whatever the hell you want me to do", but they responded "no, you should be honest with yourself, and only work on something you are truly interested in". So see how THEY care about my needs more than I did about my own.

Now, let me get back to the crouds topic. Like I said, I don't have problem with crouds. But the way people react to YOUR issue is very similar in logic to the way they react to MY siutations. You said people don't like you because YOU are uncomfortable with crouds. Now, let me ask you a simple question. If YOU don't like crouds, whom will this make uncomfortable? Other people? Not unless you can INFECT them with "dislike of crouds"; and, as far as I know, this is not contageous. The only person who is uncomfortable is YOU. So why should OTHER PEOPLE be mad at YOU for YOUR being uncomfortable?

Here is an analogy: other people are mad at YOU for the fact that YOU (not them) are uncomfortable in crouds. Similarly, the professors don't want to work with me because *I* (not them) would be uncomfortable if they did. So how come NT worry about aspie level of comfort even more than an aspie worries about their own level of comfort? And if NT-s are so worried about making an aspie comfortable, why do they hurt Aspie ten times further whenever they find an aspie uncomfortable? In my situation, not having anyone to work with would make me a lot more "uncomfortable" than working on a topic that is SLIGHTLY different from my interest. Yet, the professors only worry about the latter discomfort but not the former. Likewise, in your case, your discomfort with crouds probably fades in comparison to your discomfort due to other people's disapproval. Yet, other people only worry about the croud discomfort, but have no second thought when it comes to criticising you for it, thus causing the other kind of discomfort.



Yes, I agree with this. And it affects me on few different levels:

1) If there were no level shift, then at least I would have been able to confront people on their disapproval and explain my side of the story. But due to level shift others make it impossible to do that, since they would deny whatever topic I want to talk about. For example, if I confront professors for not being willing to work with me because of my bad reputation, they would just say "oh no, it has nothing to do with your bad repuation, I am just busy". Now in many instances I actually pushed further and told them that I know they are "lying" about being "busy". THey simply continued to insist they are "busy" no matter how much I pushed.

2) THere is also a problem with level shift on another end. When I am thinking about physics or money or whatever, and as a result FORGET to talk to people or say hello, people assume I am being rude. Now, from literal point of view, if I don't talk to them, it is neutral. I don't say either good or bad stuff, so its neutral, right? But because of LEVEL SHIFT, people ASSUME that I practice level shift myself. So when I am being "neutral" by not talking to them, they ASSUME I am being negative.

3) Suppose I am in a good situation. The professor is considering taking me on and we discuss our mutual interests. Whenever there is a slight disagreement between my views and theirs, I would mention it. Why not? After all, I didn't mention anything HUGE, I only mentioned something slight. But the professor assumes that I practice LEVEL SHIFT. So, when I mention SLIGHT disagreement, the professor things it is a HUGE one. But I didn't practice any level shift, I meant exactly what I said. And I also meant every word of it when I said that OVERAL I am interested in what professor is doing. BUt professor doesn't believe the latter since it can be explained in terms of LEVEL SHIFT which I never practice.



Being a physicist has been my life time goal since I was 9 years old. In light of this, even if something else did work, it would be worthless if I couldn't ALSO be a physicist. Being mathematician is the only alternative that would make me happy (and yes I am applying to postdocs in both disciplines). That is why I am sticking to academic career no matter what.

The good thing, however, is that I finally learned about having a different course of actions, which I will use *IF* I get a second postdoc. The problem is that I have very low chance of getting it. That is why I want NT people to realize that I finally learned something and give me the second chance.

Here is what I would do *IF* I get another postdoc

1) From day 1, make sure that most of my socialization happens inside of the school I get into, NOT the internet. This would enable me to network and develop connections that take FEW YEARS to get solid, and help me with getting a third post doc down the road

2) At least during the first few months I am there focus most of my energy in learning about other people (both their work and their non-academic life), not just myself

3) Regularly attend academic seminars that are being given few times a week. Also, ask questions and, thus, demonstrate my interest in other people's work

4) Likewise, regularly attend conferences at other schools

5) Whenever I am given any advice (whether academic one, such as 3 or 4, or non-academic one, such as not to give money to scammer) I should LISTEN to it. EVEN IF they mention something OTHER THAN what I asked and OTHER THAN what I am thinking about, I should STILL listen, since I just mind find it useful on a hindsight, when it is too late.

6) If I am not sure about something (such as scammer situation) I should always ask for advice

7) However, if I already asked for advice on something (such as whether or not it is okay to use needles in Inida) I should make sure not to ask it over and over again since that would make it look like I am not listening.

8 ) Take showers, shave, and make sure I look presentable whenever I appear in a social settings

Now, I am sure if I did these 8 things I would have been better off. I was TOLD about them for several YEARS, but I never listened becuase I didn't see a logical reason as to why they should be important. Now, that I screwed myself over, I DO see a logical reason, so NOW I am more than willing to do them. I just wish others could give me a chance. I mean how can I possibly do ANY of them UNLESS I actually get a second postdoc. So I wish others could just believe that I will change and give me one. And then I will make sure I would never have to ask for special favors any more since I will do my best NOT to screw myself over.



Yeah, but the same argument can be made against ALL theoretical physicists, not just me. Yet, they have successful careers, and I don't.

Now, in part you are right. I did, in fact, got a lot of "so what" in my direction, from other professors. On the one hand there is an "academic" reason for it: my theories talk about the microscopic things that can't possibly be verified experimentally. On the other hand, however, there are FEW other people who also work on these things, yet, THEY get along fine.

Now I know I am a bit more creative than they are, in a sense that their ideas were also considered by others while mine are ENTIRELY my own, and yes this can be part of it. But I strongly suspect that if I made good impression socially, others would have been more willing to listen to my ideas, anyway. After all, the ideas of these other people were also originally started by ONE person (such as causal set theory was started by Sorkin) and obviously someone listened to that ONE person.

So why can't anyone listen to me? Probably because of my making bad social impressions. Thats why I want a chance to fix my social behavior now that I know the "rules of the game". And I want to be given this chance, through a second post doc position.



In that case, however, he picked a very rare religion. In America there are 200,000 Messianics contry-wide. Here in India he was the only messianic person in the entire state of Karnataka. So I guess it is a bit weird. Why couldn't he pick some more common religion? It would have given him more audience, and, therefore, more money?



The reason I haven't met her is that she is in New Zeland while I am in India. I met her on dating site. The reason I searched long distance is simply because I want to date people of European ancestry, and I don't think there are many such people here in India. So I was planning to search long distance from outset. As far as she is concerned, she actually had an experience with long distance relationships before, so she was open to an idea. But she had reservations because past long distance relaitonships didn't work very well.

As far as money, no she never asked me for money, and we were chatting for over a year now.



This is definitely true about the scammer.

As far as the professor who agreed to send grant application and keeps postponning, well, clearly there are reasons not to trust him. But at the same time it is hard to say how he "takes advantage of me", since he never asked me to pay him any money. THis is a question though, not a statement: may be you think of something I haven't. WHat is your idea on a way in which that professor benefits through this procrastination?

Now, since you said that gullibility is my main problem, do you think it also applies to the situations earlier in my life, when others expressed HONEST disapprovals? Do you think the professors who told me up front that I have "no future in theoretical physics" were somehow benefitting from my believing them?

Does this mean that you haven't been doing the things you listed during your first postdoc? This could be just it.




I don't think gullibility enters into the situation with the professors. Maybe it's social behavior, maybe it's a matter of there being more aspiring physicists than positions available. I don't know that the problems you're having here are any different than those that anyone else would experience. I don't think any of the professors benefited from your situation. Why did some of them tell you that you have no future in theoretical physics? Did you ask them?

However, the scammer situation leads me to believe that the gullibility problem is one that you must get a handle on, regardless of where your career goes.