New girl in my office

Post Reply New Topic

Not quite. I remember one black girl back in the 90s whom I kept confusing for white. That was because she was smaller in size, pronounced words the way whites do, and was the smartest in class. So the fact that those things made me confuse her with white seem to suggest that blackness isn't just about melanin.

Before you call me racist, let me point out something else. I am not saying she is the only black who is smart -- I met other educated blacks. But no I didn't confuse those other blacks with whites. So I guess it's not only intelligence. There are other factors such as the way you talk the way you walk, etc. But, whatever it is, it's not just melanin.

Those differences are cultural or sociological not biological. Reading a book on race from
a sociological perspective will give you a much better understanding of supposed racial differences. You probably also need to overcome some confirmation bias as well.

Your lack of education in this regard is contributing to your racist beliefs. The good news is that it’s a fixable problem.

I guess I just believe in honesty and openness. Also, if you think about this culture where you aren't allowed to "say" things, it gets quite ridiculous:

1. If someone says something they shouldn't have, they are racist. If they deny their own racism they are still racist since, the reasoning goes, racists are good deniers

2. If they didn't say anything they shouldn't have, nobody accuses them of racism. But wait a second. Didn't you just say that racists are good deniers? Well, not bringing up the topic is the number one denying strategy, so those people should be on the top of your list. But nope. As long as they didn't break the rules of the game they are fine.

And I see it not just with racism but with any other issue as well. Let's say I do something on a date that is a turn off -- and let's say it has nothing to do with racism. Let's just say I forgot to take a shower, or I came late, or any number of other things. So when the girl rejects me for this I then start to bargain with her asking for a second chance "because I will change". And then I notice the following:

3. She refuses to give me a second chance -- and her stated reason is that I have to be who I am

4. But wait a second. Others are the ones who put up a front, not me. That is precisely why others didn't screw up the first date and I did. Yet the girl acts as if others are honest and I am the one who tries not to be

I realize on the surface those sounds like different topics. With things like hygine or being late I insist I will change while with the color of the girls I date I don't intend to change. However, below the surface, I see a commonality, and this is the following:

A. With 1 and 3, the person I am talking to acts like I am less honest than others. With 1 they don't believe me when I say I am not racist. With 3 they tell me that I would be dishonest if I learn to take showers and be on time since it would hide my true nature

B. With 2 and 4, others are the ones that are dishonest. With 2, they were dishonest by way of omission of the information. With 4 they were dishonest by putting up a front on their first date that hides their true nature their date would like to know.

Now you see how it is hypocritical? The person who is more honest than most (parts 2 and 4) is the only one being accused of dishonesty (parts 1 and 3). It reminds me of the story of naked emperor.

This also reminds me of my mom's friend from Russia who is mathematician. My mom told me that, after the communism was over, he admitted that, back in the Soviet days, he never agreed with communism to begin with. But he treated it as "the game". The rules of the game was that if the topic comes up he has to say he supports communism -- and then change the subject to whatever it is he wants to talk about. Now I am not equating liberalism with communism (as it happens, voicing racial opinions is a taboo in America a lot more so than in Russia) but rather I am saying that in both cases there is "a game" that involves pretending -- it's just the topic where you pretend happens to be different.



But if a woman gives me a time of a day once a year and I double the number of women I am open to, this would replace once a year with once a half a year, which is still too little.

Or are you saying it would increase my chances a lot more than that since white women are the choosiest ones?

I am a scientist, so I am all for reading books. Yes, if I run into the books you are talking about I will totally read them.

But here is the thing though. Your mindset is either/or. Either it is sociology or biology, so reading sociology books would disprove biology. I don't see it this way. I see the world as complicated and there are often many factors. So I think one should read both biology and sociology books to get the full picture (and biology books can include the ones deemed to be racist, just like sociology books can include the ones deemed to be on the far left).

The other thing to keep in mind is that, even in the absence of biology, the sociological factors are valid concenrs as well when it comes to dating other races. Why would I want to volunteerly subject myself to those sociological disadvantages if they are, allegidly, strong enough to hold someone back in life? Well, I am not saying that they are, not in this day and age. I am just taking one consideration to the extreme in order to make you see that things are not that simple.

I guess you might ask me "if things are complicated, why am I making simplistic decision to avoid other races". I guess it is because this would be the one thing I can't really hide. Lets take my other preferences. Such as I always wanted to date mathematician or a physicist -- but then I gave up on this since I can't afford to narrow my choices so much. I guess what I can say with this one is "even if she is not a mathematician or a physicist, maybe I can convince her to become one; or even if I won't succeed, maybe I can raise my kids in that career, etc" But with race I can't say this. If I marry a black woman, then she will always be black, and our kids will always be half-black, no matter what I do. That is the type of thing that worries me.

What would happen if your kid is half-black. Would God strike you dead?

If I had a kid who looked like a certain judge I know who is half-Chinese and half black, I would be most glad, indeed. She's an absolute knockout---and a judge to boot!

No. I think it is probably fine as far as God is concerned. But I will feel like I failed to continue my line.

I guess if I were to have one kid from one woman and the other from the other one, then it is fine if one of the women is black as long as the other one is white.

In any case, since I don't believe in divorce, the above scenario is unlikely (unless I get really old and, after my wife dies, I manage to attract a woman several decades younger and have kids with her).



Well, if God was fine with divorce, then it would be interesting to get different kids from different women to try different combinations. But since God is not okay with divorce -- let alone the fact that it is unfair to the women -- then I have to make a choice and I guess continuing the line I already have feels like a priority.

You would be carrying your line, though. The kid would still have your genetics.

Heck, people who adopt kids view those kids as their own.

I guess I would, but it won't be the same. I want to do a perfect job since I only get to live once.



I don't. In fact, each time I hear of people who choose to adopt kids rather than have their own, I can't help but imagine myself in their shoes and how I would end up regretting this choice when it is too late.

By the way I would MUCH rather have biological kid with someone black than to adopt a white kid.

Incidentally, when I complain about "dying single and childless", some people tell me "its okay, not everyone has children", and this response makes me really angry, I feel like they believe that due to Asperger I am defective and my genes deserve to be wipted out. But now that we have this conversation, something else occurred to me. Could it be that others simply aren't as concerned about their genetic line as I am -- and so their advice not to worry about it has nothing to do with my defectiveness but rather its because they themselves don't attach as high of importance to it as I would?

Well, the one person that *would* relate to my desire to have kids is my mom -- and nobody in my family ever adopted kids. So I guess maybe I was raised to see it this way.

Last edited by QFT on 15 Jan 2020, 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Having kids is not a perfect experience.





Why would you regret it and not regret choosing to have biological children?

I meant the long-term impact, not the experience. Raising them can be the pain, but if I raise them well its all worth it.



Because if I continue the line, it can end few generations later. But if I end the line, I can't start it back. So I don't want to make irreversible decsions like that.

What is "imperfect" about a kid who has more than one "race" in its genetics?

That judge I spoke of has pretty darn good "genetics"---if you want to know the truth.

Or....maybe "genetics" isn't the number one consideration when it comes to assessing the potential of a person.


Anyway.....you would be surprised how many "white" people actually are not all "white" in the United States---and elsewhere.

And when you look way back.....all of us came from Africa, anyway!

That's a "short" scale. Thank you for the explanation. I love information. As I ponder my recent ASD diagnosis it makes me a bit sad that my love of data is "weird" to many. It seems wonderful and natural to me.


Thank you for relating. Joking: To further increase your rating, perhaps bring flowers or another car-warming gift for the drivers.


OK, I got it. I have a similar issue with a person who doesn't like me that is in my social circle. I make the effort nearly every time (always "the fool"). The trick for me is to not make an effort (or rather to make the effort to give him space). I think you are nearly the opposite (never "the fool") so the trick for you is to make the effort more to fill the space. Moderation can be hard for ASD folks.


I have lived almost five decades being mostly invalidated, so I was playing with the vengeful idea of invalidating NTs.
Past Reality - Me: "What's that smell? OMG!" NT: "There's no smell. Stop worrying." Me: (embarrassed)
Playing at Revengeful Fantasy - Me: "What's that smell? OMG!" NT: "There's no smell. Stop worrying." Me: "you don't smell that? I'm sorry you have an average sense of smell. You're not embarrassed by that?". NT: (embarrassed) Me: (gloating)

I wouldn't really do that (unless the NT is a real jerk and I have the presence of mind, unlikely). I will advocate for myself, but it's fun to consider. So going forward I will say "The smell is very subtle..." and make safety considerations.


So perhaps some more of that in life would be helpful for you. The second half was another example of when you didn't "engage" and that ultimately was a disadvantage in this situation. Again, to not engage can be very useful but I think you overplay that card. Just as I engage a lot, but overplay that card. Opposites, but similar in our extremes.


As per your example, letting it be is not necessarily avoidance. In one situation letting something "be", means you would engage with a person (as you did above). In another situation letting something "be", means I would give a person space (instead of smothering them).


I think that's the ASD conundrum. That we don't instinctually know and we think (or don't think) about it and tend to behave in extremes. So I could make a rule with person in my social circle that doesn't like me - that when I see him, I approach him 1 out of 2 times and he can choose or not to approach me 1 out of 2 times. He probably won't, but at least I won't always be the one approaching and he'll have space to change his behavior. I suggest you make a 1 in 2 or 1 in 4 rule with your officemate. Put your "pride" aside 1 in 4 times.


Agreed. There are a lot of shallow people out there.


This is important. It is uncomfortable. Thankfully, for me, I hope it's more in my past and less in my future.


For me it's more seeing myself in others' posts, even my opposing self. I have plenty of "lonely" posts and responses here. I'll take what (small goodness) I can get!


Well, as they say, take action or forget about it. Ha! That's quite an ask of ruminating ASD folks. BTW, some of my best work situations and friends came out of initial disagreement and upset. Funny that.


I don't recall. Probably something belittling myself, so I ironically brought up work friends (further belittling myself) and my co-worker took the bait.


I only dated men, and they got browner and their hair longer each time until I married one. I am happy in my interracial relationship. Here in the US multiracial marriages are nearing 20% (according to National Geographic 17% in 2015). You are clearly in the 80% majority. There is one area you socially conform!

My BF early in college was a Chinese man. He said he would only marry a Chinese woman. Last I knew, he was still single.


Ideally you find the "girl" who appreciates your "overanalysing", helps you moderate it (e.g. provides you validation) and/or otherwise allows for it.


My BFF recently got me a gift which states: "I will make better mistakes tomorrow." Go embarrass yourself (in a different way, not the typical way ). Now's the time! You'll survive! (and I believe, be better for it)

This is probably the case. There are lots of people who don't want children at all, they're called "voluntarily childless", and also people who have a "if it happens then it happens" -attitude. Nothing wrong with either of them as long as someone who really wants kids doesn't get in to a relationship with someone who really doesn't.

I myself really want children, or at least one child if more isn't possible, but I don't really care that much if they're mine biologically or not. I don't care about passing on my genes, I care about passing on my morals and values. Of course, that might still not happen since children are individuals, but having children of my own (biologically or otherwise), raises the chances that my views won't die with me. The reason I'm aiming to have biological children first and foremost instead of adopting despite the risk that birth giving would bring to my health and life (the down side of being a woman, I suppose) is that adopting is a very tricky, long and expensive process here.

But you know, if passing on your genes is your top priority, couldn't you donate to fertility clinics? That way your genes wouldn't die out even though the children wouldn't be legally yours. Those places are often in high need of donors, so if you're passable, your line would very likely continue.

I guess to me sperm donation is not satisfactory, yet adoption is not satisfactory either. I guess I see it as in I have to hit both points in order for it to count. Although the situation where it is actually my kid and they know it -- yet are raised by someone else -- is a bit better -- although that won't be something I would want either.

In any case, I remember you were telling me about the desease you have. I don't know much about it so I wasn't sure whether giving births is risky, but I am not at all surprised. If I was in your situation I probably wouldn't want biological kids either.

It kinda makes sense what you say about having kids as in letting your worldview survive. I have this viewpoint when it comes to my career in theoretical physics. I want to be able to pass my theoretical physics ideas to the physics community in my lifetime so that I know they won't die with me. And no I am not saying I will pass them through my children -- by physics community I mean other physicists that are already alife as of now -- I am just saying I get your point.

But, going back to the thing about "hitting all points", I want to "both" pass my genes (through my kids) and pass my physics ideas (through physics community). Neither one replaces the other. I want to do both -- or I would feel unfulfilled.

Something else that crossed my mind is that some families have no issues letting elderly die instead of saving their life. But philosophy of both my mom and myself is to save their life at all costs. Two years ago my mom was fighting the sons of her elderly landlord in that his own sons wanted to let him die and she wanted to prolong his life as much as possible. I am totally on my mom's side on this one. He ended up dying anyway -- but the good thing is that it was *not* because his sons had their way.

I guess to me, the idea of accepting the fact that someone won't have biological kids and accepting the fact that someone will die look similar. Neither of those two things are acceptable to either me or my mom -- yet they are to some other people. To me life -- both in the form of one's own life and in the form of passing genes -- has always been highest priority.

Well I guess there is one exception: if a woman tells me I have to switch careers to be more financially supportive before we can have kids I won't do it. My physics career is even higher priority.

For me it's not a problem but consider the feelings of non-white WP members some of whom might have experienced racism when dating (it's hard enough having Aspergers). I'm old enough to remember the types of "honest" opinions both men and women make about the prospect of ever dating a non-white person and they are really quite demeaning (I won't repeat them here).



You aren't living in mother Russia anymore. You don't owe your ancestors anything. There is a mentality in many parts of the world (including Africa and Asia) where people are conditioned to believe that marrying outside of your tribe is a taboo.
It's actually a primitive form of thinking.

But in the western world there's the added layer of "white supremacy" which is a conditional bias. You see images of attractive white people on TV, billboards, magazines. You want your child to conform to this "global" image of what success looks like.

Ok I harp on about this stuff too much but to me it's a mental problem. Are white women the choosiest....well obviously. In every part of the world a "attractive" white woman is desired.

I was shocked yesterday watching a Bollywood movie industry documentary that white british girls now outnumber local Indian girls in dance scenes filmed for the movies. These girls were interviewed and giggled on camera on how much fun they were having. They were happy to earn $1000 per month in India (not really worth the trip) for the opportunity to be ogled and salivated over by 1 billion men across south Asia and the middle east.

The Indian and Arab men who watch Bollywood movies want to see scantily clad dancing white women (not Indian, black, Asian) not rocket science really .

Birth giving is always risky to healthy women too, not just disabled ones. I don't know yet if I have higher risk than normal women or not; I plan to look in to it in a few years.

That's actually pretty likely to happen; lots of people also refuse to have children before their situation is financially stable... or at least that's how it is here, especially among well educated people.