Cause-consequence NT-style

Post Reply New Topic

From my observation...

When a manipulator wants to make you look bad and they have nothing to accuse you of, they'll treat you outrageously so that you retaliate - and then bingo! they have a nasty action of yours to accuse you of.

Why do they use this as manipulation?

Because they know that NT onlookers will ignore the CAUSE - CONSEQUENCE LOGIC. They'll often blame the one who DEFENDS from attack, saying their defense was the CAUSE of the attack, though the attack was BEFORE they defended from it!! !. The defense is the CONSEQUENCE, it happened AFTER, but they'll claim it to be the CAUSE.

I've therefore learnt never to retaliate openly, to avoid being accused of starting it.

From my therapist:

Me: She hurt me deeply. So I didn't go to her birthday party.
Therapist: See? You have a problem with aggressiveness. She hurt you because she was offended that you didn't go to her party. That was a very aggressive thing to do to her.
(Therapist explains reality by switching cause and consequence arbitrarily, as if the two had absolutely no relevance in the story, when they actually make all the difference. Therapist is an NT).

Why don't you just ask this girl out and have some fun?

Oh my grandma doesn't like to go out much...

Yes, bullying 101 ! Amazing how standard that technique is, too.

Two kinds of causality:

*Actual - how reality works

*Social - a tool used in heirarchichal social sorting, by laying "blame" (not to be confused with
actual, rational blame) for actions, "because" (not to be confused with actual cause and
effect) they were "wrong" (not to be confused with actual wrongness). None of the
concepts have any real meaning; they're just placeholders for a different game.
(Maybe nature evolved this because escaping logic allows for more choices(?))

I.e. "You cause them to bully you, so it's your fault."

Your therapist sounds like an idiot, but then they generally do.
And the answer is less to simply "not retaliate"... but to openly and publically make a declaration of what they are trying to do subversively.
You point out their outrageous behaviour, and then play the ethical high-ground card and point out that they have failed in making you rise to it.
If at all possible, while still entirely truthful, be sure to express the worst of what they are doing... and don't take no for an answer.

Playing the Judge is a game that must be carefully undertaken, but if done properly works on anyone and everyone.... bosses included.

.

(Maybe nature evolved this because escaping logic allows for more choices(?))

I don't think people escape logic. I think their gut (instinct), which we Aspies lack, makes them act logically in the end, regardless of their illogic thoughts. Example: people usually side with my bullies, and say I'm the aggressive one. Yet, when they're in need of someone caring and not aggressive, they act logically: they turn to ME, not to the bullies.

NTs don't need to analyse the situation and reach logical conclusions, their gut will take care of their best interests in the end anyway. Example: someone always befriending and defending an abuser, against all logic, then one day cutting all contact with that bully and when asked, saying something like: "I don't know, it just felt in my gut like the right thing to do at this moment."

I'd say you're misreading it.
A person's instincts will work toward their own perceived best interests at any given time, with little regard for that person's will or individual beliefs. Lower instinct serves individual survival, breeding and persistance against all odds without regard to method... while upper instinct serves only the needs of the collective (itself with a lower instinct as such) with complete disregard for individuality. Neither one care what pain or inconvenience they cause you in achieving their own goals.

Instinct is primitive though, and less developed. People often follow their instincts in childlike naivety because they don't know any better.... But when it comes down to it, concerted reasoning is usually a better judge of any given situation than the messy processing of the instinct.
I mean it gets lucky sometimes... If it didn't then it would never have spread to fixation as a survival mechanism.... but its success rate is far from perfect, and its choice of actions is typically inefficient.
Lower instinct will confront a wooden door and resolve it immediately by kicking it to splinters, while upper instinct will try to enlist the aid of a perceived "professional door-opener" to remove the obstacle....... both opposed to reason which would look for the handle and open it. The real difference is not only in the efficiency of motion, but the longterm foresight involved, and if there is one thing instincts are usually weak at, it is long-term judgement. Lower instinct will jump on the first answer it finds, no matter how ridiculous, while upper instinct is less concerned with personal ability than with playing a role.


In the end... following your instinct will result in a complete disregard for personal values, for actual fairness, for the pain and suffering inflicted upon the self in pursuit of goals.... and for how much else must be sacrificed in order to achieve those goals. You simply become another piece in one of nature's pointless and perpetual games...

.

if there is one thing instincts are usually weak at, it is long-term judgement.

That's VERY true. I see this all around me. NTs are lousy long-term planners. In instances where long-term planning is needed, their marvelous social intuition fails them miserably. But still, in most cases, instinct is more effective than logical analysis - because humans mostly die before they have to suffer the consequences of their thought-less moves.

The only advantage instinct has is speed.
It doesn't have to think out anything, as it really isn't accounting for much.

I mean... for instance.... take racial bigotry. That is pure instinct in action. The lower instinct goes through the following thought process: "Black person hurt me .... therefore black skin = bad" .... and that will root itself quite thoroughly in the minds of some people. THAT is what instinct does.
And then if you look at the modern situation, you have the complete inversion... whereby people will instinctively decide: "person said bad thing about black person, therefore person hates black people and is a racist = bad" ... and voila, bigotry takes a new form.
Now see... under the circumstances, a fully rational, long-thinking and non-instinctive mind would question in the first situation whether indeed the colour of the person's skin really had any connection to their actions or not.... and in the second situation they would question whether the actions of person A against person B were in any way based on person B's skin-colour... or for that matter whether it was an Ad Hominem or a valid criticism. We stop to THINK about things. It takes longer, but the results are FAR more accurate.

.

Speed is one of the most valuable attributes of instinct (vs. thought). The ability to act in one's best interest in instances when the aware mind doesn't yet HAVE all the data necessary to make an educated decision. It often takes me years to gather the info necessary to decide on the best course of action about something, while my NT peers find a (not so good, but still) solution in the spur of the moment.

Intuition is, apart from a good time saver, a good energy saver. Aspies have to use energy to think it over, while NTs are free to do other stuff while their intuition is at work. This accounts a lot for the big amounts of down time Aspies need, the inability to focus on several things at once, etc.

Just because I was born without social intuition doesn't mean I don't think it's a great tool to have, and much more effective than analysis in many, many situations.

I find it starts with a question, and if I answer, I am wrong. They do not even have a cause. They do not konw what I am doing, so start by demanding I explain myself. Then they judge me as being wrong, but with no explanation of why.

I answer 'Maybe" often. Demand, response, condem, gets messed up when there is a Maybe.

Now they must look at the possible maybes, and ask a detailed question, mostly they just go away.

Maybe takes many forms, What are you doing? Gets the reply, What the boss said to do. Now their manipulation has a new focus, the challange is no longer to you, but to your superior.

I am sure the boss had their reasons for not informing you, but you could take it up with them if you wished.

The CEO has a secret plan, I am doing my part, you are out of the loop.

Kicking it upstairs is a time honored tradition in business.

As per your other thread, when the boss calls you in to say you the most useless person in the office, this is never mentioned to coworkers. I am operating under special instructions from the boss, ask them.

You do miss the point of management. If one person in the office is doing three times the work of any other, the Manager looks bad. They should get an equal result from all employees, so the practical answer is cripple the over producer and level out production.

Maybe, Good Question, Why don't you bring that up at the next staff meeting, I am sure the boss would like your input.

You are right about their inability to plan long term, and that they are always right in the end.

You see it as a problem of logic, they see that it will be done by useless apes.

Perhaps you should go into IT. Slight mal performance is addressed.

Office apes left running over a weekend would be a sorry sight come Monday morning. They barely make it through an 8 hour day.

Deflecting attacks is better than letting them get to your rational mind.

You can never win with Grandma, so let her win, it is a little thing, let her win and she will pass on the easy prey and pick on someone who reacts. You gave her low hanging fruit, who is not at my Birthday party.

Give an ape some rope, and they will tangle themselves up.

When they lob a hard serve, pretend it hit the net. Let them argue with the line judge.

When their effort is a waste, and gets no response, they lose. They will quit a losing game.

Now should not you be at your desk working on your part of the bosses most important project?

Boy isn't it wonderful how people ignore what we say and they switch our words around?


You say someone hurt you so you didn't go to her party but your therapist says she did whatever she did to you because you didn't go to her party. Hello, wasn't she listening to you or did she truly switch your words around? I always correct them when they do that to me.

Another one they like is to start the story at a different (later) point, and so change the whole story. Example:

Me: John hit me, so I ran away, he came running after me, and pushed me. I pushed him back.
Therapist: Hum, I see. You ran away on John while he was trying to interact with you, so John had to run after you. Then you pushed each other. We'll have to work on why you run away on people.

I would start corrcting people if I were you. I would tell her "But John hit me so I ran. Who likes to be hit?"


No wonder people say I argue?

Oh I used to """"correct"""' them. Until I realized it's not that they got the story wrong. They purposefully start the story where YOU are the first to act - so they can place all the responsibility for the conflict on you.

I never knew people did that. I wonder why they do it anyway?