I'm A Gay Aspie

Post Reply New Topic

Tehehe... Yes, well, I was speaking theoretically... I have seen it happen though. A very shy close relative of mine, not diagnosed Aspie but very similar to me, met some really great friends by joining a group involving voluntary work and mixing with other volunteers, making friends with people she liked at the time but who later turned out to be not so great, and these led other friends from there who turned out to be much better for her, and they've been socialising long-term now. So it can work; about 2 or 3 connections in this case were all that were needed.

Just socialise with the best available people, genuinely make an effort to appreciate what's best about them, what's interesting etc., and they'll potentially lead to other friends you may like even more. Very natural, respectful, nothing fake, "pseudosocial" or manipulative. There's value in every social interaction, even if they're not the most compatible companions.

If we're not capable of socialising, then we're not capable of socialising. If you'd prefer to limit your social life to the internet, then do that instead. I wouldn't expect an online friendship to necessarily survive in the real world though. Maybe it will, but I doubt it, especially if we're not capable of socialising in the real world with anyone else. Aspies tend to be more capable than most of learning, and there's hope for us all.

I hear what you're saying, but -- even disregarding the fact that the relative to whom you refer has not been diagnosed and may well therefore not be on the spectrum at all -- I still think that the inherent social limitations of our condition would probably ill-equip us to recognise our 'target' (in the 'Small World' experiment) even if we could somehow blunder our way toward him or her. And that's assuming that our 'target' actually operated within NT circles in the first place. Unless you believe in ideas of predestination or 'love at first sight' or something like that. I think the danger of what you're proposing is a sort of 'Flying Dutchman' syndrome, in which the ever-optimistic Aspie roams the high seas of NT society forever, never putting to harbour or finding somewhere to weigh anchor. I don't doubt that it could happen, mind you, but I simply think it's unfeasible as a general proposal for locating a match. You might as well stick a pin in a phone directory.

The example is just a bit of evidence that connecting with one group of people can lead to increasingly compatible friendships. I'm a diagnosed Aspie, she's not, but very similar socially. Even if she's not, it shows that it can work.

There seems to be the implied suggestions in your post that (1) "locating a match" is unlikely because there are so few matches out there, and (2) the social interactions on the way to finding an optimal match lacks value. To (1) I'd answer that this is only the case if we have a very narrow conception of the essential traits of a match. I used to be far too dismissive; greater open-mindedness may be needed, appreciation for a wider range of personalities. This is an important lesson I've learned in recent years. If it seems like searching for a needle in a haystack, we are probably being too dismissive and failing to appreciate people. There are many wonderful people in the world. We need to appreciate differences, diversity, as well as similarities. There may be more "matches" than we think. To (2) I'd say that there is great value even in mixing with people who aren't perfectly compatible. We of course need to strictly maintain safety standards to avoid abuse, physical danger, etc., but beyond that, it's a good thing to mix with various other humans. There's value in "drifting" as you call it, even if chosen randomly from a phone book.

What you say is of course true, and my notions of 'target-based' behaviour were informed by my prior knowledge of the original 'Small World' experiment, in which the subjects had to get letters to specified 'target' individuals.

There's no doubt that expanding the circle of one's acquaintances (theoretically) increases one's chances of finding a compatible personality within that circle, but it leaves the 'seeker' open to the more superficial aspects of a social acquaintanceship, when the best possible 'target' for them, encountered at any stage of their search, might not be the most socially-obvious person they encounter. And of course, there remains the possibility that the 'ideal' match (or something more closely approximating him or her) might lie wholly outside predicted social networks.

Granted, because of the 'peer review' aspects of such a search, you're more likely to meet someone on the same 'wavelength' as you than you are by getting drunk in a pub or club and snogging the person you are most attracted to, but I still think that the proposed method has unpleasantly manipulative overtones, seeming to regard every social encounter enabled by a friend (or friend-of-a-friend) as a sort of informal 'interview' with compatibility in mind.

These are just criticisms, mind you, I have no constructive proposals to put forward myself. It could well be that your proposed method works well for some people -- personally, I would find it beyond my capabilities and slightly amoral.

Isn't that really how people who socialise interact anyway? How could one be social and not do the same thing? To avoid doing so would involve meeting good potential friends and rejecting them. Or to make the wrong connections and never move on... But then they surely will anyway. It's about being a better person to everybody. To genuinely value people even if they don't tick every box, and to meet other increasingly compatible people once part of a social network. Openness, friendliness, kindness to everyone, not being so narrow-minded that we reject people because they don't quite meet our own "match" criteria, is the only way it will really work.

Of course as with anything that anyone says, you can interpret or portray it in a negative way, e.g. make accusations of manipulation, im-/amorality, etc. etc. I can see how I may be taken in that way in speaking about connections between people as means to meeting other people, but the message there is that it's better to be plugged into a social network than not, that connections with others are worthwhile for those extra reasons. I'm still struggling with putting this into practice myself. As a theoretical model, it helps me to see that every social contact is more worthwhile than I'd otherwise acknowledge. It can only involve treating and thinking of people better. In absence of a better strategy, I'm sticking with it.

Well, the original point had a slightly more, shall we say, calculating element to it.



This I can agree with, it's a heuristic process rather than an algorithmic one. But it sill relies on consciously exploiting people to whom your friend has introduced you for the express purposes of meeting further social groups and so on, if you go along with the model of exploration that we're following. A more natural approach would imho to allow acquaintanceships to grow organically and see what directions they took you in, although this has its own natural limitations because any given acquaintanceship you might strike up could prove to be a dead end (although that doesn't necessarily mean without valuable social qualities in and of itself).



"The message there" ... is there a message there? Aren't we in danger of arguing from the particular (the example of a non-As relative) to the general (a supposedly implicit model for AS people to follow)? I agree that diversification of one's potential friendships in life is probably a beneficial thing for the subject, but think of how many people he or she will piss off in the process of winnowing out 'unuseful' acquaintances.

I'm sorry, but I have an instinctive distrust of such 'social climbing' models, which put me in mind of neurotypical people at their most superficial.



Well, quite -- as a person on the spectrum, it is an incredibly difficult procedure to follow. Because it involves attempting to form numerous pseudosocial 'relationships', exploring each of them near-simultaneously, while keeping a sort of mental checklist of who is likely to be most useful in making your next set of connections, and then repeating that process again and again for an unforeseeable number of times.

My own approach has always been to wait to be introduced to a friend of a friend and see how I get on with them: If we have (on first meeting) the apparent potential for a good relationship, then I will attempt to keep in touch with them, either directly or indirectly (through our mutual friend). I presume that any friend of a good friend of mine has at least some commonality with me, and (perhaps to a slightly more diluted degree) their friends (should they choose to introduce me to them) will be likewise similar-minded in some way.

That's one area where I think the 'small world' model you espouse breaks down: By choosing from a circle of acquaintances the person with the most potentially-explorable 'next tier' circle of acquaintances (and so on) you run the risk of getting so far out of your original social context that you may find yourself becoming 'friends' with someone with whom you have little or nothing in common. And of course this method provides no guarantee that your progress will tend to be 'upwards' in terms of social compatibility, although you might not recognise this while following what appears to be on the face of it a logically-justified route.

Since I wrote that I have grown and changed, but I also wasn't on the defensive, and took the basics of common human decency as given. I expected fellow Aspies to understand that looking at the problem in an abstracted way is not sinister as you suggest, and didn't foresee it degenerating into a personal attack based on someone insisting on a 'glass-half-empty' perspective. If I have to point out that people are to be respected as an end in themselves not just a means to an end, maybe that says more about you than me.

It's not either heuristic or algorithmic; the algorithm of social contacts leading to more social contacts is followed by the heuristic of positive treatment and attitude to each person.



So I have to defend every phrase now? Can't you just look for the good in what I said and move on without searching for criticisms / points to score against me? Ok, "message" was a lazy word choice. How about "the output of the generalised thrust"? Whatever. It's easier to tear down than to build up.



Your approach follows the same algorithm - it's up to you if / how to make further social contacts. Sinister thoughts/motives are also up to you. You can take what I've said and put a negative spin on in, and build a straw man to show how you imagine it wouldn't work. Sour grapes anyone?

Erm, I haven't 'built a straw man', I've simply provided my perspective on why it's a slightly maladaptive process which risks causing social harm in order to achieve an uncertain aim that might not even be feasible to begin with.

I haven't divined 'sinister thoughts/motives' in anyone. I haven't even assumed that your proposed method could potentially expose you to people with 'sinister thoughts/motives' (although that would be an inherent risk, which you might or might not decide to be worth taking).

I haven't even said it wouldn't work -- it might well work, and good luck to you if it did, but (I would suggest that) if it were that simple then the problem of association for AS people would have been comprehensively solved long ago.

As for 'sour grapes' ... WTF?

In all, and trying to be as even-handed as I can, I think we must be misunderstanding each other so badly that this conversation is at risk of becoming overly negative and personal, so I shall take the initiative and bow out here.

So you're saying either that the small worlds phenomenon is irrelevant to social interactions, or that it's harmful to be aware of.

Your maladaptive application of what you claim the implications of considering the small world principle is a straw man, easy to tear down and dismiss as manipulative etc -- but that's from your own imagination. Another straw man: your claim that I said that it was capable of soling the problem of association for people with AS. I didn't claim to have a solution. I only presented my thoughts regarding application as speculative, but I do stand by my claim that the "small worlds" phenomenon is relevant to social interactions. Your only contribution here, aside from your negativity, is to claim in effect that it's either irrelevant or harmful to be aware of.

Re "sour grapes", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

I have found that the LGBT community as a whole can be a lot like high school. You are going to encounter people who judge you for what you wear, your hairstyle, your body weight, the car you drive, who you date, how much sex you have, who you have sex with, who you live with, what you like to talk about, and where you live, I could go on and on. Many of these people know how superficial they sound and don't even care. It's best to just go on with your life and let them live theirs. There is really no point in getting upset about this stuff.

Hi, bi/lesbian here (have previously have boyfriends but now happily married to a lovely woman).

Totally agree about the community being shallow. I never went on the "scene" as I just couldn't cope. I joined a Viking re-enactment group, made friends with a group of lesbian members they happened to have, who took me under their wings, and they introduced me to my wife through a role-playing game they started (Vampires vs Werewolves). I wasn't even fully out at the time.

I've always hung around with unusual, bohemian people rather than the "popular" crowd anyway. I'm drawn to real people, people who don't obscure their personalities with ego and veneer. People who I perceive to be two faced quickly get dropped.

Anyway I agree that the best way is to just do stuff that you enjoy doing. LGBT people can be found in all walks of life but we don't all fit the stereotype any more than all aspies do. The best way for NTs and aspies alike to meet that special someone is through mutual friends or interests, I reckon.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to do that because I do not (yet) have a driver's license. I live less than an hour from Pittsburgh, but I can't go there without a license. Once I get my license, I hope to go out and meet guys.

I always have a very hard time getting along with gay NTs. I actually get a long with straight NTs much better. Gay men at NTs +100.