NTs' logic - YES, there is such a thing

Post Reply New Topic

If you go around assuming there's always an ulterior motive and are on the look out for one, won't people accuse you of being paranoid and hypervigilant?

No one said "always". Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

That's the part we all have trouble with. Knowing when people are lying or are being straight forward. The same can be said for NTs. Look at all the decieved people in the world and there are lots of them. I think not being able to detect the true motives of others is a common problem, not one our mothers can really teach us about. What our mothers can do is teach us to be slightly vigilant, but not completely paranoid.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 15 Mar 2009, 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

From Malinowski, R., Sinclair, P., and Nelson, A. International Creative Cookbooks German Cooking. Ottenheimer Publishers, Inc., 1978. Printed in US; Weathervane Books.

Not in any style, but you get the point. So, the recipe...

beef rolls
rinderrouladen

"The people of Berlin claim the origin of this dish."

Quote word from word in the book [items in these brackets are what I added]

4 pieces of steak roll or sandwich steaks, each about 6 ounces
2 tsp Dijon style mustard [this is optional as it is really good without it]
1/2 tsp salt
1/4 tsp pepper
2 Large Pickles cut into long thin strips
2 ounces salt pork or 2 strips of bacon cut into thin strips
1 large onion, chopped
1/4 cup vegetable oil
1 and 1/2 cups hot beef broth
4 peppercorns
1/2 bay leaf
1 TBSP cornstarch

Lay steaks on flat surface. Spread each with mustard; sprinkle with salt and pepper.
Divide pickles, salt pork (or bacon), and onion among the steaks as shown.
[Basically, on each strip of steak, slap on some mustard, salt, pepper, then layer with bacon, onions, and pickles]
Roll up steaks jelly roll fashion; secure with beef roll clamps, toothpicks, or thread.

Heat oil in a heavy saucepan, add the steak rolls, and brown well on all sides (about 15 minutes). Pour in hot beef broth, peppercorns, and bay leaf. Cover and simmer for 1 hour and 20 minutes. Remove beef rolls, discard clamps, and arrange on a preheated platter.

Blend cornstartch with small amount of cold water, stir into gravy, and bring to a boil until thick and bubbly. Correct seasonings and serve separately. Makes 4 servings.

Very good point, but I think it helps young Aspies to know the savage type behaviors of NT's unintentional behavior; otherwise, it's hard for them to adjust to that thinking in adulthood. I'm thinking high school is a good age. Maybe Junior High, but I'm hoping I'm rich enough for my kids to be home schooled in Junior High, like while we are touring Europe or something.

I have a lot of books, but I learn things in indirect ways. First I read randomly in low level stuff until I get a sense of the issues and concepts, and then I read more formal studies and data and then opinions of others.

I have social psychology books, that explain how people build a sense of identity and self-esteem, and once you understand that, it's a little easier to understand what ticks them off, what motivates them and what they fear. Peoples' sense of identity is where their Ego system (values and how they are valued) tie in with how they react to experiences with others and how they are treated.

That social psychology at the one-on-one level is how to understand what people want from each other and why they need to interact. That topic is "sociological social psychology." In addition to the social psychology literature, there is a lot of one-on-one reading material, from body language interpretation to how people lie. The Robert Greene "Art of Seduction" book would fall within the category of one-on-one interaction, but of a really sophisticated kind -- manipulation, like what a con artist or seductress does (some reader comments on Amazon.com are kind of interesting).

Sociology also examines groups and societies, and how people gain influence, allocate resources and compete. The stuff that Robert Greene's "48 laws of power" covers is actually sociology -- applied practical group social psychology. Robert Greene's "48 laws of power" stuff is like Sun Tzu's "Art of War", and Machiavelli's "The Prince" in that it talks about how to get, use and protect influence in groups. These are more like practical handbooks for people who are in power or climbing the ladder. Sun Tzu's "Art of War" is an ancient Chinese war manual that is so wise, people read it as a metaphor for competing in life. Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" is what people are referring to when they call someone "Machivellian". The book is about how a prince gains and keeps power among his court and subjects. The book itself, "The Prince" is a centuries-old classic and is online. Karl Marx is currently being rediscovered in sociology because Marx's historical theories of society are sound scientifically (even if his attempt to develop a utopia was not). The materialist theories of society also are referred to as "Historical Materialism" or "Political Economics", and study why groups and societies evolve the behaviors and patterns they do, from the context of who controls stuff people want and how people get more stuff (i.e. power)

Another way of examining behavior is a new economic approach, embodied in Stephen J. Leavitt's book "Freakonomics: the Hidden Side of Everything". Leavitt takes a materialist tack on human behavior as an economist by studying the system of incentives and disincentives that surround white collar corruption. "Freakonomics" stuff usually explains some particular quirk or pattern of human corruption, and in the process the study ends up revealing interesting things about how people in groups behave in the presence of particular incentives and punishments, and their prejudices and assumptions. Leavitt's book is really fun, and has chapters in it like "Who cheats? Everyone cheats, Why people cheat." The really, really interesting thing about Leavitt's work and his book is that it turns out that white collar corruption is largely unconscious crime. I.e. the people often don't think of themselves as going over the line or hurting anyone, just taking advantage of the system. So most white collar criminals never even see themselves as bad, just helping themselves to an advantage that they think doesn't hurt anyone in particular. This is fascinating because it highlights the moral ambiguity behind a lot of unconscious abuse and exploitation, and because it's so relevant to what went wrong on Wall Street and in our federal government in the past decade.

What would be good reading? It depends on what level you're at in these topics. The thing is that so much of social theory is intangible, if you're reading above your level, it's hard to realize it and if you're mind-blind, like we are, its hard to skip levels. Maybe Greentea could give better recommendations.

If you're up to reading a college level textbook, a fast way to start is to slog through an introductory course, even though that is the least fun way to start on a subject. There is a good sociology book outline online. If you can slog through it, the first few chapter summaries introduce the history of sociology and the major theories, like Marx's materialist theories of society. The later chapters go into sociological social psychology, like how we (or rather, how normal people) start forming their sense of identity and personality through each other. The book covers Mead and other major theories of other-and-self formation from social interaction. You can either get the book if you like the info in the outline, or just use the outline information as an intro to Google with, and learn from there.

For more neurological and physical oriented view of how people tick socially, the specialized topic of "psychological social psychology" is a more psychological version of social psychology than "sociological social psychology". The way psychologists study social psychology is more clinical and internal than the way sociologists do it, by generalizing into rules and laws of behavior.

Last edited by ephemerella on 15 Mar 2009, 11:31 am, edited 12 times in total.

Wouldn't it benefit everyone though, not just Aspies? There was a show on Court TV, if I remember correctly. It was about how to detect liars, the body language they use, various physical indications that tell us people aren't being honest. Many here have already discussed lack of eye contact. Thing is, it's not always accurate. Autistics frequently avoid eye contact, not because we are lying, more like we feel anxiety when looking others in the eye.

I totally agree it would be good for all types of people, but I also think the more people that know things like how to spot a liar, the easier it is for them to hide a lie.

Breaking eye contact is a potential sign of a lie, depending on which direction they look, and I forget how that goes. But if eye contact was never made to begin with, then you are not breaking eye contact.

Yes, but this is information that most NTs have. By our not having it, it makes us very vulnerable and also it makes us appear stupid and strange to them. To refuse to acknowledge that NTs lie, play games or use and abuse others, tho, because it's painful to think about, and it's easier to be in denial and pretend that NTs are all kind and wise, is to choose to ignore what they know subconsciously but we don't.

Even the kind and wise NTs have this hidden side to them.

I've actually attempted to ask NT people to explain various aspects of social behavior to me on a few occasions, and seen them become almost angry in response. Something about asking them to analyze themselves made them very, very uncomfortable.

Good point, but, hypothetically, let's say someone has AS and they are trying to have a conversation and their anxiety takes ove and, even though they were maintaining good eye contact to a point, they stopped without even thinking, not because of a lie, because of anxiety. It can be accurate but what if it's used to frame an innocent person. This can lead to paranoia and false accusations.

It's very difficult for NTs to acknowledge the calculating, political side of their social behavior because all the emotions people get from social interaction come from the optimistic belief in the goodness of others. So thinking about the calculating and strategic side of social interaction undermines their ability to make social connection and makes them feel insecure and alienated. As far as I can tell, social skills involve NTs having to float along in a boat of social feeling or they become disoriented and sink.

That's why they resent people who challenge their beliefs, too. OR question people they love.

That is true!

In fact, the paradox is that if you do recognize and look for these ulterior motives and hidden rules of power, you won't just APPEAR to be paranoid and hypervigilant, but you will actually BE paranoid and hypervigilant. This is a layer of human behavior we are not supposed to see or acknowledge. People who do focus on it are actually being negative and feel unhealthy, even if they have to analyze behavior in that way, like we have to.

That is why AS people have such a difficult time constructing real explanations for human behaviors:

(1) Our mind blindness makes this hidden politics or ulterior motives side of human behavior invisible to us so we don't learn it subconsciously growing up, like NTs do

(2) When we do ask them, NTs are uncomfortable talking about explaining these kinds of unpleasant things clearly, and often refuse to talk about peoples' motives in their behavior from a real objective perspective even if you push them with questions about a specific behavior (Why did he do that? Why did she say that? What did they get out of it?)

(3) It is VERY depressing, negative and hypervigilant to analyze the "ulterior motives and unwritten rules" side of human behavior; it makes people feel unhealthy and paranoid, even AS people who have to do it because it's their only way to figure out behavior and learn social insights.

All of these three barriers stand between AS people and learning social insight.

This thread is a good example of what I mean in the topic of this thread. Someone uses a tactic to deter another person through guilt, the Aspie swallows the manipulation, does feel guilty as expected, then everyone else is as blind as him to the ulterior motive in the woman's accusations and everyone's happy having learnt nothing.

The art of the con man effects those who appreciate it.

Wow, I really want to read those Robert Greene books now. God, I wish I had more time for reading... My reading list is getting longer and longer...

Anyway...

I realize that I may be luckier than most, in that my mother- though she never sat me down and taught me about human behavior- did tell me when she noticed that someone was trying to manipulate me, or genuinely not treating me well. Likewise, there were times when friends of mine advised me not to trust a certain person, or to watch out. I always took their advice seriously, because even before I knew anything about AS, I recognized that other people seemed to have information that I didn´t have. I notice that if I ask someone about someone ELSE´S behavior- (not their own)- and don´t bring the word "NT" into it- people are quite happy to enlighten me about other people: (if I use specific examples- why did so-and-so do that?) Often, they tell me about all kinds of social things going on that I was totally unaware of. (Maybe that should be Aspie rule number 1- use people´s innate love of gossip to find out what´s really going on...)

However, if I ask genuine questions about human nature, people can´t answer them. In many cases, I think they can´t explain the answer- as greentea said- because it´s intuitive for them. And if it´s too general, they have to get into basic human nature, which may be too ucomfortable.