Confidence and Honesty

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry, I forgot.



I had to look up the word Byzantine because you were the first person to use this word in this context. When I think Byzantine, I am thinking of the Byzantine Empire that came about after the fall the Roman Empire. You were meaning that they had very complex and intricate social rules to them.



I didn't mean to make it sound like that female autistics had it easier than male autistics. I was just saying that from the nature side of nature vs. nurture that maybe males in general are a bit more on the spectrum then females. I was just giving a wild hypothesis. Honestly, I do not know if this is true or not. More data would have to be obtained. I never claimed that female autistics had it easier than males. In fact I am less certain of this than my wild hypothesis. The thing is I do not know what it is like for female autistics as I do not have a female's physiology. I lack even less data on this than my wild hypothesis. Again, more data would have to be collected to determine an answer. For example, defining the parameters of easy vs. difficult.

I do not understand how you made the leap in logic from what I was hypothesizing to female autistics having it easier. Why wouldn't it be logical to say that some autistics that are less on the spectrum have it more difficult than those more on because society expects more from those who are less on the spectrum? Again, how did you get to this logic that I was stating something I never did? I don't understand. If you do not mind will you please explain your reasoning as I am not female and I may not have had some of your experiences??



I understand all of this is so. Why does the leader have to go through the motions of portraying himself like he is a titan god who put the company together all by himself without giving some credit to those who worked for him and assisted him along the way? Why is it considered bad business etiquette to tell the truth of this? Let's say I was a captain of a ship who was trying to get through a storm. I had a full crew. I didn't get us through the storm alone. I did provide leadership but the crewed helped as well by doing their duties and doing them with vigor and bravery.

If I was put on the news and was asked by the news reporter how I got the crew through the storm. Why it wouldn't be proper to say "I did provide the leadership but ultimately it was my leadership in addition to the crew's diligence, bravery, hard work, and working together that got us through the storm. Why would it be considered wrong to take the focus off of me a bit and put the focus on me and the whole crew? I don't understand. This is what I am asking about business. Why does one have to portray it was all him when it wasn't all him?



I understand what but I do not understand why. What is the underlying thought process to what I am asking.

I read this and I agree with you. There needs to be more clearer definitions to these terms. Maybe they need to make up a new word that fits us.

I did not mean to assume you thought female autists had it easier Mainly, I was just expanding how each gender may have slightly different issues. It just seemed to flow with the conversation.

As far as the main point about why a culture might prefer a certain ratio of bravado to humility; I really do not know the answer. In your example, it would not be wrong or even out of place to cite the achievements of the crew. It wouldn't. It is just unless one crew member was obviously the hero, you would still get amost of the credit regardless of what you said.

lol it is fine it's my own pragmatic issues at work.



I understand. I was using this as a metaphor to convey what I was asking. Maybe I misunderstood what was said to me before and it may be my own pragmatic issues again.