New girl in my office

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah and that is what I find unfair. How can they KNOW what the person is like by just looking at them for a fraction of a second?! Like what is the logic behind it? Are they assuming that people are robots and so every single second they are exactly like every other second -- and then you can judge a robot based on how that robot is any given second? But I am not a robot, I am a human being. So I can have a bad day too.

Or could it be that NT-s "are" robots in some ways: as in, NT can have a bad day, an awful day in fact, but an NT would NEVER sit the way I was sitting that particular day? Is that what it is?!



That pisses me off too. Since she was scared -- this logically imply that she thought I would DO something -- and since I know for a fact I won't do anything, that totally pisses me off when people think I would.



Exactly. And I find it very insulting too. And then they say people with Asperger don't have empathy. Well, its hard to have empathy towards people I am INSULTED at. So since I am insulted at society-at-large, maybe thats the reason for my behavior (as opposed to any inherent lack of empathy).



And that pisses me off too. There is no need to help neurotypicals -- they have it made! -- but there is LOTS of reasons to help an aspie. Yet neurotypicals do just the opposite: they conspire to help each other and hurt an aspie.



So the phrase "as a young woman" insinuates that I am the type of guy that molests women -- AND I AM NOT -- which is why it pisses me off.

That's a healthy attitude, but it's not a small number from what I've seen. At school about 1/4 guys thought that way and it seems that among low educated men (and women, but men more) many think that way. I think it might be a "sour, said the fox" -type of thing.

But of course, it's probably different in different areas.

Thats probably the biggest reason I dismiss their opinion. If they are low educated, they lose my respect, so I don't care what they think.

But with other topics, where opinions are more spread among the education levels, I tend to care more.

There happen to be people who are "low-educated" but are smarter than people with PhDs.

If you are talking about emotional intelligence yes I believe it's important (although I still won't trade my PhD for that). But that's not what we are talking about here. What we talk about is someone telling me that -- all else being equal -- phd is a negative rather than positive. There is no way I would ever take that kind of opinion seriously.

Obviously, having a PhD is a positive. But to disavow people of "low education" is a negative thing to do.

I am talking about low educated people who ALSO say that having Ph.D. is a negative. Those two things put together makes me disavow them.

When low educated people have opinions on something else then no I don't disavow them. For example, I take it personally when they look down at me for my Asperger -- regardless of their education level.

A PhD isn't a negative, but it's only one aspect. This girl and your friend are able to assess that you're lacking in social skills. Yes, NTs turn on those who don't play by their rules. In a sense, we, as Aspies, are "low educated" or "low in intuition" on the social front, a social front which permeates all classes and environments.

Just as you look down on the less educated in academics, NTs (of all intellectual and academic levels) look down on the less-socially knowledgeable. So, be careful about being a hypocrite. You're condemning the less academically inclined the way NTs treat us Aspies for being less socially inclined.

That aside, I can totally relate to what happened and it sucks. Had you been wide awake and more socially knowledgeable (or incredibly attractive) the girl wouldn't have behaved the way she did. It's NOT your fault. In her mind she was thinking "Older man, not good looking, half asleep, I'm ALONE with him. HELP!" That doesn't mean you'd ever harm her. I know you wouldn't, you know you wouldn't, and its wrong of her to assume you would, but that's how she thinks (and her fellow NTs will all back her up in her feelings, regardless of their education level, including your colleague).

I think what made matters worse is the way you went about handling it. NOT SAYING YOU'RE WRONG, just saying you have to broach things differently when dealing with THEM (the NTs). It SUCKS, but if you're asking what went wrong in this situation, it was a combination of an unfair assessment on her part followed by your taking her words at face-value and then trying to build on that with every subsequent interaction.

As Aspies, we're notorious for this (taking words at face-value). This is NOT how NTs operate. It sucks, but it's true. They're not like us, and discovering we're living in a world populated by a majority who behave this way is very depressing. We are indeed on the wrong planet.

I can totally empathize with your plight, it could just have easily have been me in your shoes. I can relate.

But I am not assuming that less educated people are all rapists, yet she assumes that about less socially knowledgeable.



This leads to the following questions:

1. She was assuming the following things:

a) Older men are more likely to rape
b) Good looking men are less likely to rape
c) Half asleep men are more likely to rape

But why do those things have to be true?

2. Speaking of 1b, why are men with Asperger less good looking anyway? Does Asperger affect the way bones grow so that the shape of the face is different or what is it?

I guess the whole underlying logical principle behind ALL of this is positives go together and negatives go together. But the problem with this principle is:

I. It is simply not true, since it lumps together completely different phenomena that have nothing to do with each other (as statements 1a, 1b or 1c illustrate)

II. This assumption results in a character assocination. If "enough" things about me are bad, then every single thing about me is bad too. But then what the f**k am I supposed to do if every fucken aspect of my life from the time I am born to the time I die is fucken so awful (just like that girl assumes). Unlike her, I can't just fucken walk away from myself can I?!



Since, as you said, it is "regardless of education level", why doesn't their high level of education make them see those logical inconsistencies I just pointed out?!

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that we are not in a math department but rather we are in a psychology department. Why wouldn't a psychologist stop and question a correlation between a man being less attractive and a man being a rapist? Wouldn't a psychologist see the obvious contradiction between this and what they read in their psychology books?



The reason I took her words at a face value is because I was fucken desperate so I was grasping at the fucken straws. And this becomes unfair in yet another level. So, going back to your analogy with education, you are telling me that an uneducated student who is desperately trying to learn is "worse" than an uneducated student who just gives up on himself altogether. Well, thats NOT how I act -- as evident by the way I was tryign to push my uneducated ex-s to get education -- yet that it how NT-s act (as evident by how that girl looks down on me even more for the fact that I was trying).

And the other thing that pisses me off about this is that -- despite the fact that NTs are looking down at me for trying TOO hard, they won't admit it. My mom's advice to try HARDER with this girl is one example of it. I think the logic behind this advice is that

(i) Whoever gives me that advice knows full well that I will have enough sense not to try harder, since the rejection is so obvious. And, therefore, they can deny the rejection itself and say "oh no no, its just that you didn't try harder"

(ii) If I am desperate enough to follow their advice and try harder, then the rejection will continue to be non-verbal (as an example with this girl illustrates) so they would tell me "oh no, she didn't really reject you, you should just try even harder".

So if I get super-duper desperate by doing (ii) over and over, then eventually rejection will be obvious enough to make me do (i). But then they would blame it on my supposed paranoia and deny the fact that I was rejected by saying "oh it was your mistake you didn't do (ii) yet again". But wait a second, I did (ii) way too many times already. So why the f**k are they telling me I didn't do it enough? I guess because they think I am fucken stupid, so they lie to me in order to get me to stop complaining.

Now you see how ridiculous it is when -- in response to the question "why don't girls approach me" -- people are telling me "why don't you approach them yourself"? You agree that with this specific girl this advice is a complete nonesense. Well, the same is true with all the other girls too. The reason I don't approach girls myself is that girls are sending me non-verbal clues not to. But since non-verbal clues are easy to deny, thats why NT-s are lying to me and telling me its me who is being too shy.

QFT just a couple of things.

- Don't expect a girl with a PhD to be compatible with you just because she has a PhD. Hollywood might portray young professors sitting around their campus sipping coffee and discussing philosophy and the universe while staring into each other's eyes. The truth is everyone is too busy applying for scholarships, fellowships or grants, it's competitive and unless you offer some networking or collaborative opportunity for the girl they aren't going to waste their time.

- The second issue is that the pool of i) single ii) attractive iii) highly famous iv) physicists or mathematicians would amount to maybe 10 in the entire United States. I won't bother asking you to do the math but that's horrendous odds. You may be better off lowering your standards.

The fact that they would be applying for scholarships won't make us incompatible. We can be applying for scholarships together and helping each other.



People don't date *just* for the purpose of collaborative opportunities.

In fact, lets look at what you are telling me:

a) Despite the fact that I am in academia, I should consider dating someone completely outside the academia.
b) A girl who is in academia won't date anyone who won't offer her collaborative opportunities

That looks like a double standard, isn't it.



She doesn't have to hit every single box there. Of course box (i) is a must, but as far as the other three are concerned, two of those three would make me happy. Case in point: I used to date Miss Nebraska and she didn't have any education beyond high school (and she was homeschooled). But that was fine with me since she was famous. And, conversely, if I could date a mathematician or a physicist, she doesn't have to be famous since mathematician or physicist is already good enough.



I already DID lower my standards. Thats why with every single past relationship I had (except for Miss Nebraska one) I was settling. I wish I could actually date someone I am happy with for once.

I had three long term ex-s (Miss Nebraska was the third one). Every single one of them were overweight (Miss Nebraska gained weight between the time she won the contest and time she dated me). The first and third one never went to college. The second one was in grad school at the time we dated -- but she changed plans and got masters instead of getting ph.d. -- and besides she was in biochemistry, not math or physics. And if I look at the short term girls I dated, then its even worse. MOST of them didn't have college education, ALL of them were overweight, and NONE of them were even remotely famous. So you see where I am coming from? I don't even know what its like to date a girl of a normal weight, or what its like to date mathematician or a physicist. I wish I could find out what its like.

They’re not true. If you’re asking “Why do NT women behave that way instinctively and make those assumptions?,” you’d have to try to perceive the world like an NT woman.



That’s an interesting question, and there has been speculation if Aspies look different from NTs. Regardless, if you have looks OR social skills, either/or can be used to your advantage. NT “logic” is heavily judgmental and status-oriented. So, a not-so-good looking NT has the social skills. A good looking Aspie has the looks. If you have neither, you’re quickly put into that BAD category. (I’m not calling you ugly, but you’re not Brad Pitt, so you’d have to rely on social skills, in which you’re deficient.)



Yes, many people of varying education levels can understand these things intellectually. That doesn’t mean they put them into practice when dealing with people one-on-one. Many are oblivious to their own hypocrisy and think they’re doing nothing wrong. They think it’s YOU who is to blame and their response is totally appropriate. This is a big component to NT behavior.



Again, I’m not faulting your behavior in the field. If you’re trying to learn from this, I’m trying to tell you that NTs don’t abide by our logic. They also pick up on desperation better than we do, which is more of a turn-off. They also don’t like to be called out on their hypocrisy and will lie and dance around their transgressions and blame YOU. This is how they behave naturally.

Even the ones that are kindly toward you may behave this way to someone else that they deem weird, socially inapprorpriate. Never assume the way an NT behaves around you is their natural character. They alter their behavior on a person-to-person basis. They’ll also put the blame on YOU (even if they know it’s not your fault, they’ll find a way to dance themselves out of it).

As varied as we are, I do believe Aspies are more likely to “be themselves” around everyone equally, and may be naïve about just how diverse NT behavior is person-to-person.

I don’t agree with it, I’m just surprised you’re so shocked by all of this.

Well, women are not stupid. So if they aren't true, women can see that they aren't true just as easily as me and you can. Hence the question: why don't they.



What are some of the results of those studies?



Now you see why I am so desperate? Since status is so important then of course I am desperate to recover it. NT-s should understand more than anyone else how bad character assassination is and therefore why I have a really good reason to be desperate. Things like staring or asking weird questions is just my way of dealing with this desperation. Yet NT-s don't seem to get it.

And the other way in which NT-s are hypocritical is that when I complain about my low status they go like "oh who cares what anyone things, just be happy with yourself". What is ironic about it is that the reason they say this is precisely the opposite to what they are saying. They don't want to try and help me -- because helping me would involve inviting me to places and they don't want to be seen around me -- in other words, the real reason they don't help me is all about status. Yet, their excuse for not helping me is how status presumably doesn't matter. Don't you see how ridiculous this is.



But you see how illogical it is. Why is it someone with bad looks more likely to be "bad"?

The way I see it is someone with bad looks is a victim; someone who is bad is a perpetrator. So why are they confusing victim with perpetrator?



How can I be to blame for my looks? Do I have control over the way I look?



I make no secret about my desperation. As a matter of fact, with that male in question, I had several hours discussions two years ago why don't people like me and so forth. What I don't understand is this: if I tell people I am desperate why don't they feel sympathy and try to help me? Why is their reaction the opposite?



I never assumed it was their natural character: I knew they are doing it specifically towards me. You see, if I thought it was their natural character, then I wouldn't be making all those long posts complaining about it. What pisses me off is that I see NT-s chatting to each other but not to me. But when I complain about it -- then yes people lie to me that its their natural character -- like one thing I been told was "hey you are in math department, mathematicians aren't the social bunch" -- to which I replied "but I see how they are social to each other just not to me".



I am very much always myself around everyone until I majorly mess up due to this and then I am like "okay I realize I shouldn't be myself, I need another chance to pretend the way NT-s were pretending all along" but nobody gives me another chance. Now, in situations when I argue about it (such as argue with girlfriends that dump me or with professors that refuse to work with me) I am told "oh no, you shouldn't pretend, you should be yourself, its more important that you be yourself than (insert the issue I am bargaining about)" But wait a second, NT-s are the ones that pretend a lot more than I ever do. So by their logic its okay to pretend the whole time, but its not okay to "start" pretending at a particular time?!

I think your profile suggests that you are not offering these PhD girls enough for them to consider you "date material".

Two possible avenues here are

i) Find out if any of these "smart" girlies are looking for help in writing a journal article or writing an application for some type of funding or stipend. You can at least offer to help them (out of the goodness of your heart) and hope they value your brains.

ii) Your currently a TA? nobody wants to date a struggling early career researcher (ECR). Wait till you publish and get some type of fellowship/stipend and then at least you have more to offer a female ECR

That's called using me. I want someone to love me not just use me.

Here is the point. There are couples where scientist dates non-scientist. So let's say scientist Jane dates non-scientist Mike. Obviously Mike isn't helping Jane with her science career, yet she dates him anyway. Yet you are telling me that the main reason Jane won't date ME is presumably that I am not helping her with her career. So, if you were right, you would have to tell me how is Mike any more helpful to her than I am. If you can't tell me that, then obviously there is got to be some other reason -- such as Mike being NT and myself being an aspie. So, due to being an aspie, I can't get any relationships other than user-telationships?!

And here is another question. You mentioned in your other replies how female scientists purposely suppress their achievements in order for men to date them. Now -- as I said before -- I am totally against it since, to me, the more successful scientist the better. But let's pretend to continue with that logic for a second and see where it gets us. So you are saying two things:

a) Women scientists suppress their achievemts in order to marry

b) The reason women scientists marry is so that their husband helps them with grants

So if you put a and b together you get

c) Women scientist suppress science achievements in order to get help to improve their science achievements

Now you see how absurd part c would be?

So either a or b (or both) have to be wrong. Personally I think they are both wrong. But what do you think?

Sorry, security check disallowing my reply the past couple days.

Have you read about bystander non-intervention? Analogy: It's helpful when folks are injured for others to apply pressure to wounds or call emergency, not for everybody to stand around and say "Those people are bleeding". Observations are useful when followed by appropriate action. My group is "hemorrhaging" non-clique folks. Studies show that a business (or community) suffers from loss of diversity of thought. I agree. The *entire* group morale is down (as reported by coworkers). Someone do something!

For myself, I'm more likely to speak up than others. I read that woman are more likely to be "natural change agents" and ASD's are more likely to be "nonconformist" so perhaps per nature/nurture it's "allowed" for me. Curious: How often do you speak up when you see someone treated unfairly? (how often do you notice?) Are you more or less a bystander making observations or looking to see what others do?

It's my VP's knee jerk "we can't do that" which lit me up (and hence I shut down). Coming from a VP I give it some authority assumed factual basis. Next time I'll persevere past the first two initial responses (if I can talk reasonably).


I had research printed and on hand for my meeting with the VP. Links available also. He showed no interest in them; nor has my immediate management.

The problem is that often it's also unconscious for those negatively impacted. Examples: I knew my job description didn't "fit" me but I couldn't articulate why (there is no explicit "he", it's implicit). I discovered a job I intended to apply for was closed early (and the hiring manager didn't re-open it for me). Plenty of studies about the first phenomenon (there is an online gender-bias analyzer) and I found recruiter blogs that note the second is a common pattern that negatively impacts women (and others).

Ironically the only job description I have applied for so far was "strongly female biased" according to the online analyzer. I'm as easily manipulated as the next person. Now that I am aware, what to do? In the past if a job description was heavily male biased, I wasn't aware and simply wouldn't apply. Now that I am aware, I still think I wouldn't apply because I am tired of working in an environment that "has no women" (non inclusive).



Yes, I need to stop "giving away" my power to folks I perceive as "superior" and using it --- collaboratively, especially if they are feeling similar to myself albeit with their perspective.

I am for People's Rights (inclusion), but somehow it doesn't fly if I say: do you see how that group of PEOPLE are oppressing this group PEOPLE based on dislike traits? Years ago when asked if I was discriminated against because I was a woman, I said "no, it's because I am not like [that person]." And everybody breathed a sigh of relief, partially fixed my situation but nothing was done in general and dozens of people have been hurt by this person. So now I know to say "YES! it's because I am a woman." Which is just part of the picture and leaves out others, but it's the language of the Business and it's a start. It's silly really, but everybody keeps telling me "that's how it is", so I'm working with it. I cringe to hear I am for women's rights, b/c I want inclusion for any marginalized group (including reverse discrimination).

Haven't you noticed the right-hand biased soup ladles and covers? I make a mess almost every time.



Friendly teasing: I didn't write that to you. You are listening in on my conversations with others. (But of course I knew you would read it.)

Ah, ha! Maybe my axiom is that anyone other than me is in a position of power (+x to mine). I get intimidated by BABIES. There's goodness and badness to that attitude. I know the social rules but don't "get" them - so this is not about Woman so much as ASD. In my mind, I am equal to CEOs and the homeless, elderly and the young, (whatever other scale) but I know I'm not by practical or social circumstances. On occasion, I sit down with the service contractors at my workplace when we both happen to be on break. In 20 years I have never seen any of the other corporate staff sit with them. (I have also done so "upward" in the corporate hierarchy). Clearly I am violating unspoken social rules. Does my management think less of me for that, or do they appreciate that about me? You and I are equal in theory, but if you stepped into my current workplace, it's likely you would be rewarded more readily that I would, simply by being more like the current "golden standard". I brought the toxic work culture into the light and there has been some change (which benefits the team), but it remains too oppressive for me. I WILL find a place with more egalitarian standards; I have to.

It's a relief for me to "voice" concerns and perspective that are unusual in my workplace.

So, back to topic: What is the "new girl" in your office thinking about how it is for her? Oh, wait, that would required "Theory of Mind" and supposedly ASDs are "bad" at it, although I would propose that we are simply unassuming and allow for unanticipated differences. So what's the update to this situation or have you moved on? If you updated in a separate response, feel free to refer me to it (I am not reading other responses).

As always, wishing you well for your choose-your-own adventure.