The notion of being "done"

Post Reply New Topic

I have met NT-s with different level of patience. Some are not patient at all and even if I make the smallest slip they walk away. Others are so patient they will try different ways to get through to me for weeks. And then there is everyone in between. But they have ONE trait in common: once they are "done" (however soon, or however late that might be) it is no return point. Even 10 years after they are "done" they would still not want to talk to me. So I don't understand why is being "done" such an irreversible thing. Are they robots or what?

That isn't an NT/AS thing at all, I don't think. I can be done with someone fairly quickly, or after many years and attempts at getting along or understanding. But there is a point at which, usually if their values are different than mine, at which I just let go and say no more. Or sometimes it's just because they seem to have no interest in getting along with or understanding me.

Friendship is a two-way street, and it also requires some point of understanding and connection. Otherwise it's a waste of energy and one simply moves on.

Are you attempting to connect and get along as well or just hoping they will?

I'm only "done" with a limited number of people.

One of them was for putting a revolver to my head and pulling the trigger while he was drunk. He "knew" it was unloaded, but I'll never forgive him for doing it -- all firearms are loaded whether or not they have bullets in them.

Another two are for pulling every trick in the book to destroy a company in which I was a major investor and cost me and the other investors a whole lot of money and years of work. I do wish they would go to prison for fraud.

Outside of those three, I can't think of anyone else I am "done" with. There may be others but I can't think of them at the moment.

You said yourself, sometimes you can try to make things work for years. So lets say, you tried to make things work for 536 days and on the day 537 you were "done". So, if the other person would start cooperating on the day 536, then you would never avoid them to begin with, not even for one day. On the other hand, if they start cooperating on day 537, then it will be "too late". Now, suppose that after failed attempts to cooperate on day 537 and hearing that you were done, they were to come back to you on day 14836 willing to cooperate. You still won't talk to them ALL because they saw the errors of their way on day 537 instead of 536, So the ONE DAY (namely the difference between 537 and 536) has LIFELONG consequences, yet 536 days (in the event they do cooperate on day 536) would have been completely inconsequential. Don't you think its rather robotic? So NT-s are the ones who don't see "gray areas" and draw "sharp lines" like that.

It isn't robotic at all. It involves a complex and ongoing cost/benefit analysis which it would be hard to program into a robot.

In some cases, the offending person crosses a line and does a single thing with such a high cost that it would be a bad idea to stay involved with him. That line is crossed in an instant and there is no going back so in that sense it is very black and white but that is because the cost of spending more time with them is unacceptably high. Eric76 gave an example of this with the drunk friend who shot him in the head with a luckily unloaded gun. Spending time with a person who thinks it's comical to ignore basic safety could cost eric76 his life, so he is done.


In other cases, and what you are probably talking about, the cost is incremental and keeps slowly building until it reaches the tipping point of "done". In your 537 day example, it is very unlikely that the actions of the first 536 days were, as you say, inconsequential. They weren't so individually costly as to be instantly unforgivable like the gun prank. Instead, the cost accrued slowly over the course of 536 days. It was 536 days of "gray area" where the other person was slowly but surely distancing themself on a sliding scale of how much they were willing to put up with. On the 537th day of accumulated bad feeling, they were done. The cost was too high.

So what would have happened if the offending person had stopped doing the offending thing at- for example- day 400? Things would not have been great between the two people. There would have been a distance between them that was not great enough for them to be "done" but not as close as they originally were. Not robotic. Not black and white. All gray.

A very common example of this (not from my own life, thank goodness) is a love relationship with a cheater. Some people will tolerate a couple instances of cheating (tolerance varying) but even if the person they are with swears "never agaon" and sticks to it, the pure trust is gone even if the relationship continues. And at some point, the cheated-on person will say "I'm done" and will be done even if the other never cheats again. But the points prior to that were not inconsequentail. They just weren't quite enough to completely destroy the relationship.

Still though there would be COMMUNICATION which would leave the door open for things to improve over time (as distant as the person might be, the communication always leaves room for explaining what happened and so forth; or even if they don't want to talk about it, there is still an opportunity to show by actions you are changing). But when the person is "done" then there is no way to possibly change anything without communication.

So there is still a "gap" in a sense that there is no such thing as "being done for a period of 1 month" or "being done for a period of 1 year". Either the person doesn't stop communication at all or they stop it forever, and 1 single day (the difference between 536 and 537) changes from the former to the latter. I mean, if at a day 536 communication would not have been stopped (despite all the distance you just mentioned), why can't they stop communication at day 537 for say 1 month? Why is decision at day 537 eternal?

A really good point...it's all about give and take. Try to examine, with the people in your life, whether you are the one always giving information about yourself or if you are listening or taking information in. Usually, taking an interest in others, even in minor ways, will prevent them from being "done". As well, it's not so black and white as "we're friends" or "we're done". There is always a series of events that happen in between, which can include things that people may not say directly to you.

I actually avoid most people most of the time. When I'm "done" with someone it's not usually a matter of them cooperating or not. It's usually a matter of them making demands on me that I'm not getting anything out of.

It's difficult to answer this on a hypothetical basis. Each interpersonal relationship has its own unique dynamics. So I can't even begin to understand what you might mean here by robotic, or what was really going on in the situation, if it was a real one. Sorry.

But Janissy's reply rings true for me.

I agree. I have had times when this applies very well.

Well "making demands" is still "not cooperating" in a sense that when they see you can't fulfill them they still make said demands. Now, "starting to cooperate" would amount to saying "I no longer make these damands; it is better not to fulfill said demands but still be around you rather than keep insisting on them and push you away".

Case in point: back in 2006 I was supposed to find a professor to be my thesis advisor by a certain day, or be expelled if I fail to do so. I would go to the professor to discuss our future project. He would ask what my interests are. I then would go on and on about my specific physics ideas for 15 minutes. Then he would say our interests are too different so he is not willing to work with me (probably it wasn't my ideas that were off but rather the fact that I would talk about them for such a long time that would indicate that I am not open to work on anything else). But then I would say "look the things YOU are interested in are also quite nice, and yes I am willing to work on what you do too lets discuss YOUR interests not mine". But professor would just say "you have to be honest with yourself and not work on something you are not truly interested in". I would then say "yes but I AM interested in what you do!! !" and he would be like "no you are not!". But is he a mind reader or what? Incidentally, it is the TRUTH that I was interested in what he did, yet he didn't believe me. Besides, if he cares about me so much that he wants me to do EXACTLY what I am interested in, then how come he doesn't care that I would be EXPELLED unless I find a professor by a certain date (I was not expelled because one retired professor took me on because he felt sorry for me).

So you see, in the above situation I "made demand" in the professor's interpretation of things. Namely, professor wrongly thought that I "demanded" that we work on the very specific thing I was going on and on about. On my end of the line it is not true: I didn't "demand" we work on THAT topic (I only want A topic); the idea I was making a monologue on was just a suggestion not demand. Be it as it may, I backed off with the supposed "demand" when I said "I am willing to work in your area of interest" yet it was "too late". Now, in your case, you said you are "done" with people who make demands you can't fulfill. But how do you know none of them were trying to "back off" afterwords? Perhaps they DO want to "back off" and no longer demand said things, but you don't know it because you no longer "hear" what they have to say (just like said professor didn't hear what I have to say). That is why I believe a "line of communication" is so important so that at least you can have up to date information about your reasons to cut them off!



Okay the example I am thinking about is a girl named Anne who rejected me back in 2005. What happened back then was the following:

1. Anne approached me in math class. Apparently she used to be interested in dating me before approaching me -- after all she was asking other students about me long before she approached me and she later told me she was looking at me from the first class onward. But I ruined it all by conveying to her I am sheltered by my mom. This caused her to think I would want my girlfriend to shelter me as well and thus she didn't want to date me. However, her assumption that I want to be sheltered is simply not true: I don't like when my mom shelters me either; my mom does so against my will. So I won't be expecting anyone else to shelter me either. But still Anne made that false assumption of my need to be sheltered and I haven't corrected it.

2. However, she gave me plenty of opportunities to explain the relationship between me and my mom (this includes both her questions about my mom before the rejection -- which I ignored because I didn't realize their importance -- as well as an explicit invitation to correct her if she was wrong after the rejection). I could have used them to explain how I don't like being sheltered and my mom is wrong in wanting to shelter me. Instead, what happened was

a) During the first week I didn't realize the importance of mom issue so I ignored her questions altogether

b) At the end of first week when I asked her to date me and she turned me down she OFFERED to talk to me about my mom in case she was wrong. When I took up the offer I didn't actually say anything about my mom and instead said a bunch of other UNIMPORTANT thigns that made her cry (for example, when I felt like she was being annoyed I was "mad" at her for not dating me I wanted to make her feel better by blaming it on myself so I said that if it wasn't for desperation due to MY asperger I would "drop her"; I meant "drop the subject" but I accidentally said "drop you" which made her cry). When I finally wrote her an email explaining that I "misphrased" various things I said to her, she was still open to be friends with me nevertheless she was "done" talking about that particular subject since "it wasn't solving anything". On my end, this felt like I no longer had an opportunity to convey to her information ABOUT MY MOM which I never did on the first place -- no single thing I told her at that meeting even mentioned my mom!! !

c) Later on I made some attempts to go back and talk about my mom. At times she agreed, but always with some "later" date, such as "we will talk about it when I am done with exams". We never ended up talking about it.

3. She tried to continue friendship, but because I was upset that I was "not heard" (in particular, I no longer had an opportunity to "correct" her understanding about my mom) I started acting out. Among other things, I was deliberately not showing up and making her worry about me as she was making repeated phone calls asking me where were I, to which I was saying in deliberately weak and sickly voice I would show up in a minute and didn't (my intention was to make her feel I was disoriented and get her to worry about me which worked). There was also times when I was coming to our meeting and then walking off because I noticed some details of situation that indicated that she is distant (and looking back most of the details I was reading into were rather small and unimportant), and one time I insulted her friend (Anne knew it had nothing to do with her friend and I was just taking out my frustration about herself).

4. In all of these cases Anne was extremely patient in trying to remain friends with me. For example, a lot of times when I was acting out and then making some short apology she was diligently trying to make ME feel better about what I did, and also the sheer number of phone calls she made when I was not showing up to act out also indicates a lot of patience. Apart from that, she also offered to take me to university autism center which I never went to, and I remember at least twice when she was trying to introduce me to her circle of friends, while I ignored/turned down both of the attempts. Likewise, BEFORE the rejection (during first week) she was cooking for me and also taking me to caffees paying for my food -- both of which I accepted gladly. Later on I realized that, as far as food is concerned, she did that because she thought supposedly I need sheltering since my mom shelters me so I should have turned down these offers and/or I should have done something to demonstrate I am capable of taking care of myself (she later told me that she never saw me making an initiative to eat unless she takes me to eat which reinforces her idea about my mom). But I simply didn't realize this until it was too late.

5. Since I didn't see myself from outside, I never noticed anything positive she did. Instead I was dwelling on some details such as "how come she didn't make a reminder call about such and such meeting at such and such time when she said she would". I then blamed it on something very little I did or said that supposedly caused "miscommunication". Said little thing had nothing to do with any of the "big" things discussed in item 3. In fact, Anne herself no longer even remembered what that was. But in my mind I was thinking that little thing on my end "caused the problem" simply because it happened to preceed some other "little" thing Anne did which supposedly indicates her "distance". As a result I was sending her epic emails few page long analyzing what I did and when and explaining myself. Eventually this pushed her away even further because, in her own words "I worry about little things that don't even exist". Now, if I look back I see that none of the little things I dissected mattered; instead there were few BIG and OBVIOUS things I was doing wrong (the ones mentioned in part 3) and in fact it is surprising why didn't she just walked out the door after the first BIG thing I did. Yet that is what I see right now because I am outside the situation; I didn't see it back then.

6. Eventually after approximately a month and a half of our friendship she said she is "going up north" and will respond to me when she arrives there. I never heard from her since then

7. Items 1-6 happened in 2005 and altogether our friendship lasted approximately a month and a half. Roughly, items 1 and 2 took place during the first week while items 3 and 5 took place during the subsequent month. The "feeding" part of item 4 was relevent to the 1-st week (although she continued to feed me later on as part of the routine except for the times when we didn't see each other which were numerous due to the tension), while "acting out" part to second and third week (after which she stopped putting all that effort).

8. Now, in 2011 I decided to contact her again. She seemed to be glad to hear from me and we had 3 exchanges or so (she was only replying 3 days or so after I sent her email). But then when I mentioned to her that I pushed a professor away she asked me what pushed her away and I responded "communication issues" in rather vague way. After that all of a sudden Anne again became very unwilling to respond. In 2011 -- 2012 I made few attempts trying to talk to her, separated by few months. Each time she would respond once or twice and then stop responding. Well, IF she responds, she responds with few paragraphs which would make it sound as if she is willing to talk; yet then she neglects to send any future emails. Like in her last email she was really excited when I told her I went to Germany and in connection to this asked her about her German family, she even offered to send me a copy of her ph.d. thesis to read. Yet, she never sent anything since despite the fact that I said yes I am willing to read the copy of your thesis.

So this brings me to the topic of the email about being "done". Namely,

A, She asked me repeatedly about my mom. Yet, once she was "done" talking about the subject, there was nothing I could do to get her to talk about it

B. She made numerous attempts to be friends with me (see part 4), yet now that she is "done" she can't do so much as even respond to my emails, despite the fact that it has been 7 years since then

C. IF there was a "communication channel" between me and her, what I want to convey to her is EXTREMELY simple:

a) While its true that my mom shelters me, my mom under estimates my skills and I don't need sheltering. I don't expect my partner in relationship to shelter me either. Case in point: Sarah sheltered me and I left her for that exact reason. Besides, after I moved to India in 2009 my mom no longer visits me every 2 months; I only see her twice a year which I like MUCH better and I only call her once per 2 weeks and conversations last maybe 10 minutes. In 2005 she was a lot more involved in my life, true; but I didn't like it back then either, I simply didn't know how to stop her. Now both my mom AND my relationship with Sarah is what Anne asked me repeatedly herself. I ignored these questions. Well I am sorry I ignored them. Can I go back and respond to the very things she herself was asking me? Better late then never.

b) Back in 2005 Anne mentioned that the reason she doesn't want to discuss my mom is that whenever she says something I don't want to hear I get mad at her. I believe this has to do with some OBVIOUS things I said (see part 2b) and done (see part 3). However, at the time I was sincerely puzzled whenever she told me I was mad at her because I didn't see myself from outside; otherwise "being angry" was never my intention I simply didn't know that I was. Right now that I see situation from outside I know EXACTLY how and why I came across mad. I will never repeat these things again. As a matter of fact the very thing that made me mad is that I felt "unheard". So if I will make sure to avoid doing said OBVIOUS things (easy!! !) then nothing would "block" her from talking/listening to me, I will feel "heard" and no more reason to be mad. Complete win/win. No I am not bargaining either. I don't want to act mad regardless. I am simply explaining why it will be easy not to be.

c) Again, back in 2005 Anne mentioned she finds it difficult to communicate to me because I worry about little things that don't exist (see part 5). Back then I didn't realize how little they were *BUT* right now I do! As a matter of fact, most of the things I brought up to her were completely unimportant EXCEPT FOR my mom. I am sorry I overloaded her with a bunch of extra information. The one and ONLY thing I NOW want to talk to her about is MY MOM as well as potential for the relationship IN LIHGT OF my mom. Other than my mom, I won't be bringing up 100 of other things to dwell on unless SHE finds them important

d) In 2005 Anne was also upset I seemed to "ignore" the part that bipolar is one of her reasons to stay away of relationships. Now, I am NOT ignoring it! I simply want to have separate things separate because I want to discuss the IMPACT of my mom onto relationship potential. BUT once I am done talking about my mom THEN I am more than willing to talk about her bipolar and so forth. The latter is NOT any less important than the former. Rather I simply don't want to confuse the discussion.

e) At one point she mentioned that perhaps I was liking her because I can't get anyone else. That is simply not true. After I was with her I had 5 other girlfriends (including one two year engagement) NONE of whom made me happy since they were not as good as her. So I am not as desperate as she might think I am.

I know I was rather verbose in items a-e but thats just communication. I know that a-e are SO MUCH simpler than anything I was dwelling upon back in 2005. I just wish she could trust me that I would cut all the bs and red herrings, and focus on the main points. I really wish to convey a-e to her, but I can't because the communication had been cut!

My plan was to first talk about unrelated things to get us on talking terms again and then once we are good friends again THEN bring a-e. And this is precisely what I was doing. So far, I have been talking to her about school and things like that without even mentioning any of the "problems" I want to talk to her about. Yet, she keeps shunning the communication regardless. Now why does she shun communication given that I haven't even bring up any of my obsessions yet? Thats what puzzling. Back then she was putting so much energy into being friends with me despite all the bs I pulled (see parts 3 and 4), yet now she can't even respond to innocent emails.

Yes, in a sense. If they care whether they're intruding on my boundaries or being a nuisance, that's a starting point for cooperation with my needs. In the cases I've encountered there didn't seem to be much concern for my needs, in fact it was obvious to me, and it usually went on for some time, with me pointing it out in some way, before I gave up. But there are other people with whom I can see fairly quickly that we simply don't connect, attempts at communication go awry, or we don't share any interests or attraction that will form any kind of glue for a friendship/relationship. There are of course relationships that don't demand that. In the case of your example of the professor, you needed something from them, but for whatever reason they thought they couldn't provide that. Neither you nor I can know what went on inside that person's mind. But something in what you said convinced the professor that they wouldn't be a good fit for you.

For instance in a relationship with an authority figure the point of connection is usually simple - a requirement I need to fulfill in order to get what I want, such as a paycheck or secure position. But that's not everything that matters to the boss. When I was a boss I interviewed people for jobs where I really couldn't pin down consciously what was wrong with one applicant until I found the right one and realized their experience fit the job like a glove whereas the other seemed to not have the right experience or understand, and possibly couldn't understand, what we were trying to accomplish. My intuition told me they weren't right, or something I read between the lines of their resume or interview answers.

Not every relationship can be forced to work. Some can - if I didn't find the "right" employee I sometimes had to put up with the not quite right one, and usually we could work something out. But it wasn't ideal, and especially if an employee has the attitude of just sliding by and collecting a paycheck, it's going to be a less than adequate situation.

The thing about any relationship is, there are two people involved who each see themselves one way. They also each see the other through their perspective, which usually isn't the same as how the other see himself. The combination also has its own dynamics and personality, which sometimes is easy and smooth and other times is volatile in some way. So it's not just a matter of two people, but a matter of two people, two projections, and the combination.

Communication is important, but human communication is far from perfect even for people who are great at talking or writing, and Aspies usually have a deficit in one or the other of those areas, or in body language, reciprocity, and so forth. It can be frustrating, but it's not surprising. NTs don't communicate perfectly with each other either.




Short answer, she's no longer interested in pursuing the relationship, and you need to take the hint.

Romantic attraction typically starts out as a projection of the ideal onto the person one is attracted to. At some point in the relationship, each person realizes the other doesn't fit their ideal to a greater or lesser degree. Then a decision is made as to whether one still wants to pursue the relationship. Clearly once she got to know you she realized on some level that you didn't fit her projection, her ideal. But she must have thought you fit it well enough to try a friendship and see where that went. But you were admittedly cruel to her. Several times. She made an honest effort and you let her down time after time.

Then she had to decide whether to pursue the relationship further. She clearly decided not to. But you wouldn't let it go at that. She was kind to say she still wanted to be friends, but that was probably her just trying to let you down gently. Rejection isn't just tough on the one rejected. If the person doing the rejecting is empathetic, it's tough on them too. You're making this difficult for her - still, years later. Let it go. She was kind to you, don't keep making this difficult for her. Respect her and care enough about her to not pursue her if she doesn't really want it. I don't think she shut off communication very early in the game at all. You weren't kind to her, you didn't consider her feelings important. You made that clear. Now let her go. It's over.

What I needed from them was to give me any damn topic so that I won't get expelled and get Ph.D. Preferably that topic should be interesting to me, but even if it isn't, I didn't care. I just needed a topic to get the damn Ph.D. On the other hand the need the professor was unable to fulfill was to work on the EXACT topic I was describing to him I USED to work on. Well I kept telling him "I don't want you to fulfill the latter need, I only want you to fulfill the former one" but he kept not listening to me.

Now, from what he told others, I actually KNOW what his reasons were. Namely, from the interview it sounded like I was bent on doing one topic and one topic only and was not willing to change my topic to anything else. THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL. I was willing to change it as far as necessary to get the damn Ph.D. But thats not the message that he got.



In order to see that I don't fit her ideal she has to do so by interacting WITH ME as opposed to judging me by the part of my life she never even seen. My mom was not there, she never met my mom. I simply TOLD HER my mom shelters me, and this convinced her not to date me. Now, if my mom were to show up and in some way influence my relationship with Anne, then thats a different story. But that didn't happen did it.

So how does she know that if HER NOTION of my mom was out of the picture I won't fit her ideal THEN? Thats why I want to EXPLAIN what happened between me and my mom to convince her it doesn't reflect on me the way she thinks it does and see what happens. Now, as far as "explaining what happened between me and my mom", that is exactly what Anne was asking me, repeatedly, and I ignored it each time she asked. So why can't I go back and answer her exact question she was asking?

I mean, the reason we are over is that I didn't answer the "mom" question back when I was asked. So ... IF I were to be allowed to answer it now, how does she know I would still not be right for her?



And THIS is the "robotic" thing I was referring to. The contrast between the first and second line of the above quote indicates that its not her attitude but rather her "decision making". If she "decides" to pursue it, then she makes "honest effort" to, despite being let down and so forth. If she "decides" not to, then she won't pursue it, not even in 7 years. Pretty black or white. Why is there no gray area such as not pursuing it at the time but 7 years later being open to see if perhaps I changed within said 7 years?



Me neither. Thats why I said in the original post



But, as I proceeded to say



and that part describes Anne perfectly, as you admitted in your last reply.

Well I don't know what to say, Roman. It seems to me that you have a problem letting go. How many chances is someone supposed to give you? They have their own lives to live, and if they're getting more satisfaction from other relationships, should they give up time and energy spent on those to keep trying with you?

Maybe you should try to focus on and examine your own behavior, rather than theirs, with a critical eye, and see what you can learn from those experiences so you can have better relationships or outcomes in future.

You can't change anyone but yourself.

Speaking of examining my behavior, I made a HUGE change between then and now. Back then I was sincerely puzzled just why did Anne think I was angry to the point of thinking about it for several hours not knowing just what did I do. On the other hand, right now the "angry" part is so obvious I don't even have to ask.

And its not just with Anne. If I take some other places I went to, like a church, I did thinks that I am embarassed to even mention but back then I was completely fine doing these things. Now, Anne was not there, I didn't have any negative consequences, and everyone pretended to be fine with whatever I did. So what is it that made me so embarassed of whatever I was completely fine doing back at the time? Clearly I am more self aware!

So in light of this improvement, I wish Anne could give me a chance to demonstrate it. I mean how can she possibly know I am the same as 7 years ago if she never tried to interact with me at present? Thats why I was talking about the "robotic" thing of sticking with decisions for lifetime.

I think it is probably common for aspies.
When another person tells me a certain lie (happens when our feelings are involved and we may or may not be at our weakest) I decide that I am done with that person simply because I feel betrayed and that other person would easily justify doing it again if given the chance.

I understand what you're saying. I've done things too, in the past, that I wish others could forget, or that they could realize I've done a lot of growing and maturing since then. I've noticed this is true especially with family, who seem to keep all our worst behaviors in mind when they consider who we are. But that's something I'm not sure we can do anything about. People are to a great degree judging and value-based in their relations, it's a kind of defense system. Think if someone was physically abused, that could be a survival factor. I think when people remember these things it's a bit like that, just protecting themselves from further emotional upsets. It's sad that your growth can't be recognized by those who are now out of your life. All you can really do about it is try to ensure that doesn't happen with people you know now or meet in the future.