The dynamics of playful/romantic conversation

Post Reply New Topic

A Theory of Mind is a theoretical construct that's necessary for the ability to think like another and to know what another person would consider interesting. This ability to know what another person would find interesting is the fundamental ability needed for having interesting conversations, or for saying interesting things. If people say interesting things, other people will generally reply back, because they want to indicate to the person what they find is interesting or otherwise stimulate the person that is generating that interesting conversation to continue conversing and, thus, a conversation is born. This lack of theory of mind in regard to predicting what others would find interesting is what generally underlies the inability of someone with AS to predict whether or not another person is going to respond, and this is largely why people with AS with severe TOM deficits are horrible conversationalists.

Those who suffer at conversation because they don't know what the other person would find interesting just end up not conversing (Due to either 1) knowing that there'll be a lack of reciprocation or 2) an actual lack of reciprocation.). And those who don't converse don't interact with females, and those who don't interact with females don't linguistically "play" with them, and those who don't play with them don't woo them. So, you could have all the confidence in the world, but that isn't going to help if you're a "dullard" because you don't know what the other person would find interesting.

This is why AS men tend to suck at romance even when they have all the confidence in the world. Is there any hope what so ever?

Wait, let's rephrase that.

What can an AS guy with these kind of fundamental deficits do to improve their odds?

Of course there is hope. It is possible to find a middle ground. You're never going to be able to connect with every single woman you talk to. If you don't have that connection, then don't waste your time talking to those women (even if they are the most beautiful thing you've ever seen.)

Find the ones you do connect with, and focus on them. Just realize that it might be a while, or even a LONG while, between meeting women that (for whatever reason) you have the connection with and are easily able to reciprocate with. I've recently gone through a period where I've really liked some girls but have been about as lost as anyone else, so obviously those went nowhere but to the Land Of Embarrassment. I've also had some interactions that have gone so well that I'm having to ask myself, "Where the hell did you come up with that?!?! That was GENIUS!" or even better, "No way! Did I really just say that to her - and pull it off?!?!"

I chalk it up to "you win some, you lose some", but it also has taken me a damn long time to get to the point where I am now.

Stop trying to be so witty with girls and just make them feel good about themselves. I suck at talking to people I have nothing in common with, too (i.e. most girls). I have no idea how to cleverly verbally flirt with girls. No idea whatsoever. I struggle to even have a conversation with a girl that has a crush on me that I've had sex with a bunch of times. There's no mutual overlap between our minds.

I think probably one of the hardest things to do in life is have a good conversation with a woman as a guy with asperger's. Getting laid is a piece of cake, though.

They're much more about the emotional charge of the conversation. I don't like to talk about emotional things mostly because I can't since I don't really understand my emotions in a meaningful way.

If you choose to view a conversation through a gendered lens it might be- a good conversation is a good conversation, regardless of sex or neurology. The same reciprocity-based skill set involved in conversing with your own sex is applicable to the other.

agreed. i have friends that claim all this nonsense of spitting game and i think it's total horsesh*t. a good conversation is a good conversation. that's just how it works. the type of woman i'm conversationally compatible with is extremely rare just due to the way my thought is totally focused on abstract things.

Right. It's hard for me to find someone who can/will converse with me about my interests, too, male or female, and I'm simply terrible at pretending to be interested in things outside them.

Last edited by Bethie on 03 May 2011, 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

If by a conversation you mean a conversation to improve the relationship so the female part in the conversation starts seeing you as a possible romantic partner, then I agree, it is very hard, and I personally gave up on that one, or to be more precise: never did that to begin with. I find it hard to start a good conversation in general, because few people, be them male or female in gender, have a hard time putting up with someone who has a rather narrow field of interests, and is rather unwilling to talk about anything else. A good conversation (or in that extend: even a good argument) is, at least for me, one of the most stimulating experiences, as it demands few things from me that I am not capable off, and is still a broadly accepted way to socialize. When I am at a party or something like that, I usually wait until someone addresses me and talks about something I can relate to, if not, I'll just stand there and support the walls. That way, I am at no great danger to make people think I am egocentric and still have a good chance to be part of the whole social dynamics. From my recollection, most people I asked really appreciated having conversation with me since I stuck to that format, as they found me to be both polite and very precise in argumentation.

in some cases, aspies seem to talk a lot about themselves and about their own interests when they are conversing. this make it hard for the date or friend to know that the aspie is interested in them. sometimes it even comes across as self-absorbed or narcissistic. i think i come across this way sometimes too. i believe that the key lies in eliciting reponses from the other person. not asking them to recite their interests like a list, but rather getting them to talk deeply about things.

PG Wodehouse. Read his Jeeves & Wooster stuff; it provided me with a ready storehouse of amusing turns of phrase, conversational tricks, and what-have-you. NT's dig that stuff - they dig it special. The real trick is not to talk about yourself; you have to "read" from another text, and Wodehouse is precisely light, airy, and quick enough to meet the requirements.