Choose the right insight option for this story

Post Reply New Topic

I suppose it depends on why A suggested carrying out the plan without you.

If it was because A was deliberately trying to exclude you that would be a reason to feel hurt and then unhappy about B's response. But knowing whether or not it was deliberate exclusion involves interpreting their, ( particularly A's ), behaviour, which as you say means using theory of mind, which is always determined/distorted to some extent, ( in NTs too ), by one's own beliefs about the situation, ( and would depend on what the "humiliating remark" consisted of exactly, ... was it the suggestion that they carry out your plan without you? ).

If for example the suggestion was made because it became apparent that you could not participate in carrying out the plan, ( in the near future ), for whatever reason, it may not have been a deliberate act of exclusion, but simply the sign of such enthusiasm for your idea that they wanted to go ahead with it anyway, without waiting for you to be available, ( unless you think they should have given you more time ). A good/inspiring idea/plan, like the wonderful one you had about a european meet, for example, and which you weren't in the end able to participate in, doesn't come with a sort of copyright over who uses it.

PS. To practise a bit of Theory of Mind here: I wonder whether, ( if the "humiliating remark" was indeed the suggestion that they carry out our plan without you ), the reason you experienced it as humiliation/exclusion was because A seemed to value your "idea/plan" over "you"? That would be interesting, and suggest that A might be on or near the Autism Spectrum, valuing ideas/projects over people! ... It is exactly the sort of thing that I can see myself doing.

... An NT is more likely to have followed the "nice" social route of automatically including you, as the originator of the plan, and even accept, ( if/when it turned out that you couldn't participate in it in the near future ), that the plan should be dropped/postponed until another time, ( a decision that they might then go back on if enough people proposed doing it anyway, but with fulsome expressions of regret to you ). I don't think that many NTs would appreciate, ( or advertise to others ), a plan in isolation; it would have value for them in exact proportion to their esteem for you.

P.P.S. Phew! That was exhausting!

.

Thanks, ouinon, but B knows it was malicious intent on A's part. She said it to me at the wedding herself.

When you say "She ... herself" do you mean B? So does that mean that despite your thinking B is a coward who will say anything to please the company she is in, you trust B's representation ( to you ) of A's intentions ... ( and/or can rely on their judgement and/or assessment of A's intentions ) ... ?

Or do you mean that A admitted to you that she had been malicious? Wow! Brutal honesty.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 03 Sep 2009, 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Two words: ABSOLUTELY NOT

Because NTs are more interested in being smooth at social interaction than in the search for the truth in all things

I think more specifically, NTs are more interested in "happiness", even if it's superficial, than in the search for truth in all things. The social skills are merely a means to promote such "happiness".

Yes, and I soooo wonder how they deal with hard times in their lives!! ! I mean, when they only choose and keep charming yet unkind people as their friends...how do they get support???

By the way, I love the photo, the very white of the linen in contrast with the beautiful color of the dog...

ouinon, you're right, I hadn't thought about that. I can't trust anything that B says, as she herself told me she alters her words and behavior to be in good terms with everyone... Thanks!! You're brilliant at ToM, I sooo wish I could understand about deceit, manipulation, hidden agendas, political and power games as you do! And you're right, I'm happy for them that they've remained friends, because they're the same type and deserve each other, even if I don't get a vibe that they appreciate each other much.

Simple, the problems get shoved under the rug. This is why image is everything, because nothing actually gets solved!

But say, God forbid, their child gets seriously sick...and their friends are all the charming-selfish type...how do they get emotional support?

I'm so bad at ToM that I need to consider all these questions and find them answers before I can make some sense out of things happening around me in terms of relating...

Well, after one of my "friends-with-benefits" (with whom I'd foolishly thought that the romantic feelings were mutual) "dumped" me after harshly and unceremoniously telling me during one evening's lovemaking session that I ought to find someone else to sleep with, he really thought that I'd be ok with going back to the way things'd been before the friendship had escalated, as though nothing had happened between us. I most definitely wasn't ok with that. In fact, I was so devastated by his abrupt and heartless cessation of all of our affectionate/sexual contact, that I stopped speaking to him altogether for quite awhile. I couldn't process what'd happened, and I certainly couldn't handle hanging out with him. I went into an even deeper depression because of it.

What really kills me is that he whined incessantly to mutual acquaintances for months about the fact that I considered our friendship to be on hold, at least for awhile. I never really spoke to anyone about what'd happened, save a friend and his fiancee, and I didn't go around badmouthing the dude. I was bewildered and hurt - yet I was eventually labeled a "drama queen" simply because I'd put a kibosh on the friendship...

Yes, that's the kind of thing that I'm talking about too.

I guess some people figure that integrity is not what draws us to others but other stuff like having the "right" friends, being seen with the right people, etc. So they think you'll gladly put your feelings aside and maintain a superficial friendship with them that only looks genuine to the outer world. Since they don't give a damn about integrity and justice themselves, it doesn't occur to them that it might be important for others either.

I guess the mutual friends resented the fact that you didn't play it cool for the sake of an appearance of harmony in the group. You should've pretended you were totally fine with remaining friends, just terribly busy (so you wouldn't have to be in touch with him much). This is what civilized, mature people do - most people say. This is why people blame the victim - because the victim is the one that stains their carpet with their tears.

With "friends" like that, who needs enemas? Seriously, I'd rather be alone. I don't have the physical or mental energy for "normals'" sadistic/narcissistic games.

The thing is that if B's assessment/representation can't be trusted, ( for whatever reason ), it is possible that A was not being malicious, ( simply socially inept or valuing ideas/plans over people for instance, as I said in my first post ).

And B may be an unreliable witness, ( because always in agreement/"polite" with everybody ), because they have difficulty with TOM, and have developed a strategy of universal "niceness"/pleasing behaviour to deal with their inability to discern people's motivations.

Have you ever been on a gluten-free diet? This may sound like an odd/off topic question, but I ask because as a result of thinking about your conundrum I remembered that I often used to get into this sort of tangle, and analysis of the infinite regression of people's motives etc, ( and the ones that I detected were almost always appalling/disenchanting ), and suddenly realised that I hadn't been doing it for quite a long time, ... since soon after giving up gluten.

It's as if I used to suffer from a hyper-sensitivity/sensory processing disorder to "people" and it has evaporated. The free-floating "existential" anxiety which used to hover over me all the time has gone, ( I already knew that ), and this has also, I now see, lightened up the way I experience people. I am suddenly understanding what Lotusblossom said about this; gluten-free diets and her ability to handle people.

It's just a thought.

.

I'm not really focusing on A's role in the story. People who try to steal something from you and then lie that it was lying on the floor when they arrived are common and transparent enough to me that I have no wonderings about them.

This is tricky. Most people I know are like B, and I never understand their intentions.

That is new data; your explanatory posts indicated that A had humiliated you in some way to do with their proposing that they and someone else go ahead with something you had suggested, without you.

In which case; A "guilty" of intent to deceive, out of fear or acute social embarrassment perhaps rather than maliciousness; ... ( what was it that they took and pretended had been lying on the floor? ... and I am not at all clear in what way their doing this would be hurtful/humiliating as it reflects badly on them rather than on you ... ), I would vote "Other" in the poll, about B, because it is still possible that B may lack theory of mind and has developed a protective mechanism of avoiding interpreting/judging ( publically at least ) people's behaviour at all, as I said in my last post. eg; they may have made so many mistakes in the past that they have given up trying.


One of the most confusing aspects of this situation is why you would even be talking to someone who would try to steal from you, ( if it was indeed deliberate rather than a genuine mistake ).

.