I remember how, back in 2008, a girl in the Adventist club invited me to one on one Bible studies. The intention was to teach me about Adventism. Yet I derailed the whole thing to asking my own questions about the Bible. She was extremely patient with me, and we parted on good terms (it ended when I had to go to India for postdocs). But, looking back, I see that it was a huge waste of time. Why did I expect an Adventist to give me any kind of answers to all those other Biblical questions? Adventists are only qualified to teach Adventism. They won't think outside of their Adventist box, so how would I ever hope to get any kind of answers to other topics?
Then in 2010, I met a certain Christian girl on a dating site. Her Christian mentor thought that autism is demonic. And both of them blamed my lack of success in life on the fact that I don't pray. Sounds harsh, doesn't it. Well, except for one thing. They were not just "Christian". They were Pentacostal. Well, "of course" Pentacostals think everything is demonic since they are into deliverance stuff. And "of course" Pentacostals would blame everything on the lack of prayer since they are into all this miracles business. So no need to be mad at them. All I have to do is switch from Pentacostals to Southern Baptists. Southern Baptists are just as conservative, yet they aren't into that stuff, so problem solved.
But Southern Baptists are into something else. They are all into clean speach, not cussing, etc. So why on earth was I trying to persuade Southern Baptist girl in 2013 that she was too nitpicky? Of course she is nitpicky: she is Southern Baptist. What else did I expect? And when I was trying to convince her to stop eating pork because some sabbaternian sects don't eat pork, that was a waste of time: she isn't any of those sects, she is Southern Baptist. So she won't care what other Christians do, unless they are Southern Baptist. And *of course* whenever she responds to me, her main source is John MacArthur. Thats her background, thats who she is!
And then I was talking to someone on one of the health-related message boards, and that person kept telling me that the body doesn't need carbs at all, and it wasn't making any sense. But wait a second. That person was into Keto diet. So of course thats what he was telling me. He wasn't a health expert, and he wasn't even natural health expert either. He was a Keto fan. So what else do I expect?
And its not just with religion or health. With physics, I encounter the same problem. I spent years trying to convince one of my math professors that some of my physics ideas are related to his math field, that is called "subriemannian geometry". No matter how long I tried, he was not convinced. Until finally he refused working with me. I kept thinking I didn't explain things clearly enough, if only I spell this thing or that other thing a little more he would follow. No he didn't. But, looking back, something occurred to me. Maybe he wasn't stupid. Rather, he was into his own "stuff" that is full of that very specific formalism. Unless I am into that "exact" stuff, he doesn't care about similarity of ideas. He is not into ideas. He is into formalism. He is not into physics. He is into math. And he is not even into math. He is into subriemannian geometry specifically. So, unless I give him right back the exact stuff he was telling me in the lectures, he just doesn't care. Well, he very much did: enough so as to keep correcting me. But we were talking about different things. I was talking about my ideas, and he was talking about his "stuff". Looking at it this way, it is strange he didn't leave sooner. Seeing that I "clearly" wasn't even trying to focus on what his focus was.
And with other math and physics fields, same thing. Looking back, I was interacting with people that were into quantum field theory, string theory, supersymmetry, causal set theory, quantum information theory, scale relativity, subriemannian geometry, and Clifford Algebras. With every single one of those areas -- except for quantum field theory -- I see things I disagree with. And even in quantum field theory, even if I don't disagree with the field, I happened to disagree with individuals with whom I attempted working. And every time I disagreed with someone, it was always about that person being stuck at a certain train of thought that I don't think is interesting (best case scenario) or don't think is correct (worst case scenario) and they just won't go outside that train of thought.
And yes, this is very much what I do too. Except for one difference. In my case, I created my own train of thought. Yes I was influenced by various questions I had as I interacted with all those people. But it ended up developing into a train of thought specific to me. But in case of other people (with the exception of Scale Relativity guy) their trains of thoughts were representative of groups of people, not one person. Sometimes, yes, they were following one person (such as in causal set theory they were following Sorkin). But it ended up being one person leading and everyone else following: and all those people that were following, they were just blindly repeating things after that one person.
I guess that is one thing I don't like to do. I don't like to blindly repeat things after someone. I have my own ideas. Are they more rigid or less rigid? That is subjective. I am sure others would say they are more rigid, while for me they seem like less rigid. Because if one is part of something rigid, one won't notice that it is rigid. One has to be an outsider to notice it. So when I think of my own stuff, I am doing what I want, I am not forcing myself to do it. But if I want others to join me, I have to force them. Thats why they see me as rigid while I don't see myself as rigid. By the same token, those other groups, they don't have to force themselves to do what they are doing: they been doing it their whole adult life. But I certainly feel forced when they are trying to get me to join them. Thats why they look rigid to me, yet they don't see themselves as such.
What is objective, though, is that other people are in groups while I am all on my own, as my own one-person-group. Maybe thats what Asperger is all about: being individualistic? And then it APPEARS as rigid to outsiders, which is just the matter of appearance?
Going back to social stuff, I think its the same thing. When I did end up in a relationship, for example, I felt like "this woman's life is dominated by certain mindset, attitude, etc. I don't want to be part of that mindset/attitude, I want to get outside of it to breath a fresh air". No, I didn't break up with my ex-s (they broke up with me) but I certainly DID find myself in a situation where I was waiting for them to break up and set me free. This didn't happen until months into relationship. So if I look at the women with whom I interacted just briefly, I felt as if "things would have been perfect if only they were given me a chance". But could it be that if they were to stay around longer, I would have ended up being in the same situations as I was with those long term girlfriends? One thing that was in common between short term dates and long term relationships is that I was myself, with my own mindset -- and not part of the woman's little world. Could it be that THAT is the reason why nothing ever worked out (be it short term or long term)?
Is it true that being in a relationship amounts to being locked into your partners little world, doing science project amounts to being locked into your supervisor's little mindset, etc. So everyone is locked into something, and what distinguishes NT-s from aspies is that NT-s are just fine with that, while aspies aren't?
Could it be that's what separates aspies from NT-s is *not* that NT-s are accepted but rather that NT-s are accepted into their little clique. String theorists won't get along with causal set theorists, but they don't have to: they both get along just fine inside their own little cliques. But an aspie isn't part of *any* of the cliques, which is what keeps an aspie isolated.
I can't even decide to stick to one church. I like to alternate churches, compare them, etc. Which is not what anyone else seems to do. I wouldn't see anyone from any one of the churches I am going to, at any of the other churches. Unless that person is myself of course.
Also, is *this* what people mean when they say I talk "at" them? Since they are all about their own little world, and I haven't immersed myself into that specific little world, I don't even know who they are. I am not interacting with them, I am interacting with my idea of them. My idea of them is that interesting scientist, or that sympathetic woman, who would come into my world and solve my problems (whether it be finding me a job or dating me or whatever it is I am looking for). But thats just not who they are. They are just parts of their specific little worlds and, since I didn't even take time to get to know their little worlds, I have no idea who they are. And since my idea of a person is so different from who that person is, thats why I can talk *to* my idea of a person, yet talk *at* the person as I do it.
21 Oct 2022, 2:59 pm
