Pity friendships: a different perspective

Post Reply New Topic

Well, the difference is the other thing you mentioned: that they are doing it because they think "I will hurt someone if they don't". If I am just complaining I don't give them any reason to think I will hurt someone. If I throw temper tantrum I do.

I realize that getting friend through complaining is not ideal either. But I am just desperate. I feel like I am in no-win situation since I can't get a friend in normal ways yet I don't want to be alone either. So I don't know what to do.

Yes, the fear of violence is unlikely to there in the case of just complaining, but someone who starts to hang out with you after you've complained could just as well be a "pity friend" as someone who starts doing so after you've thrown a tantrum.

But you're losing half the chances you could have by refusing to use one of the "normal" ways to make friends: taking the first step and talking to people yourself. Yes, you've explained plenty of times why you don't want to do that, but I just don't see the point in complaining so much when you could easily try to do something about the problem instead of waiting for others to do everything for you.

Now that I think of it, I see that

a) Others talking to me because I complained

or

b) Others talking to me because I approached them first

is "not good enough" for logically-similar reasons: in both cases they wouldn't have talked to me if it wasn't me doing somethign to compell them to. Thus in both cases I would feel like "they still don't like me, they only talk to me because (insert the blank either a or b)"

But then again, even if "neither a nor b are good enough", it is also true that "people talking to me because of a is even less satisfactory than people talking to me because of b". So if I have to choose between the two options then choosing b is better.

I guess the reason I keep doing "a" is because

(i) In case of "a" I can tell myself "well I never asked them to talk to me, I only complained about others, so they started talking to me on their own". Now I realize it is lying to myself because people are smart, they know that if I am complaining then this is probably what I am asking for. But I guess I am resorting to lying to myself cause I am desperate.

(ii) Doing "a" is within my comfort zone while doing "b" isn't. Maybe its because I had a lot more practice doing "a" than "b". But the point is that even if I were to "decide", in a safety of my own home, that "tomorrow I am going to do b", it would be lot harder to "carry out" that plan once "tomorrow" actually arrives and I am "in" that situation.

With regards to point (i), I guss it is not that clear if I think of it. One of my frustrations with people was the fact that they assume I am just doing "logical exercize" and I can't get across to them that it is my actual frustration that drives me rather than just the need to analyze. And I also remember people who were assuming I wanted to be left alone, and then they continued to assume that even after I complained. And I couldn't get for the life of me why would they think I want to be left alone if I am complaining about being lonely.

So I guess from this point of view you might argue that I have actually "fulfilled my goal of hiding my intentions" as far as point (i) is concerned. Although this doesn't help me very much. Because whomever I successfully hid my intentions from, those people don't talk to me still. While the few that do talk to me, are the ones who figured out my intentions. So it wasn't any different from straight out asking them as far as those few are concerned.

Speaking of situations of "me pitying the other person", I can't recall any "pity friendships" in that other sense, but I do recall "pity relationship" that falls into that category. Back in October 2007-- June 2009 I dated a girl. So in Feburary -- May 2008 she was really sick and I was taking care of her. This drew us close. Then in June 2008 she was no longer as sick, and she started nagging me about various things (particularly the fact that I don't give her enough attention due to studies and also some conflicts between plans I had with her and plans I had with my parents). So then I came to a point of regretting I met her. Yet I didn't want to break up with her because I remember how fragile she was when she was sick and I didn't want to hurt her. So I didn't break up with her in 2008, despite the fact that I was already not liking her. She broke up with me herself in 2009.

But in any case -- unlike what I am talking about in this thread -- I certainly wasn't enjoying it. There was no ego boost associated with any of it AT ALL. I was basically being trapped in a situation where I had to choose between hurting her and losing my freedom, neither of which felt good. The fact that I did NOT break up with her shows that I really don't like hurting people. So if it was the version of pity where "I am pitying the other person" then I wouldn't be an ass about it. Quite the opposite in fact.

The only issue here is that such situations are not that common. I usually view myself as a victim and I view it as "other people pitying me". Thats why I act selfishly: if I am the fragile little kid then I can't hurt any adults around me, so might as well throw some tantrums. Of course others don't see me that way but I do. And probably the girl talked about in this thread does too, or else she wouldn't have sent me so many messages (I interpretted them as an adult trying to pity a kid).

But then in the situations where I do feel like its the other person who is a victim rather than me (as happened back in 2007--2009) then my attitude is totally different.

I see. Makes sense, and you're technically right since you don't verbally ask them to talk to you. I do think that most people see complaining about being lonely as an indirect way of asking them to spend more time with you, though.



Been there, done that. Usually though after I do get something that I've been worried about done it turns out to not have been nearly as bad as I thought it'd be.

If so, that makes me wonder, how come only a "very small proportion" of people actually responds to this "indirect request"? Is it because they dislike me to begin with, or is it because they dislike "the way" in which I approached the situation?



I am glad you can relate to this. Maybe it was my fault that I kept talking over and over about (i) without ever mentioning (ii). But in reality, (ii) is probably the biggest reason. If it wasn't for (ii), I would have said sooner or later "even if (i) makes it not count, lets just do it anyway, better than nothing". But (ii) pretty much immobilizes me.

The reason I keep talking about (i) is that I keep trying to get WP members to explain other people's motives. I don't have to ask others about my own motives, since I already know them. I do have to ask about others motives, and that is what (i) is all about. But I think it was a mistake I didn't mention (ii), since that is the overal context of the whole thing.

Most likely it's different for different people. As in, some might really not like you, some have nothing against you but dislike the fact that you complain and don't want to act because of that, and some might have nothing against you but they have better things to do than hang out with you. And there might be some that don't understand your complaining in a way that you want them to spend time with you, like other people on the spectrum. There might be other reasons too, but these are the ones that come to mind.



Making a short summary of your own motives when making long posts on WP is a good idea, 'cause then people get a better hang of the situation and are likely to know how to help better. While people can make assumptions of what your motives in certain situations are, especially if they've read your posts before, they can't be completely sure if they've gotten it right or not if you haven't said what you're really after.

Okay, lets put them into groups:

a) "some might really not like you"

b) "some have nothing against you but dislike the fact that you complain and don't want to act because of that"

c) "some might have nothing against you but they have better things to do than hang out with you"

d) " And there might be some that don't understand your complaining in a way that you want them to spend time with you, like other people on the spectrum"

As far as "group c", surely they have at least few minutes of their time to interact with me. So the fact that they wouldn't implies that they are not really in "group c" but in one of the other groups.

Although, at the same time, even if they did interact with me for few minutes, it wouldn't change much. Yes I would be happy at first because I would see it as a "promise" for something more to come. But when I will see that nothing more is coming I would be back to my original mood.

But still the point remains: the fact that they wouldn't spare said 3 minutes (no matter whether they would help me or not) shows that htey probably aren't in Group c.

As far s Group d, you mentioned yourself that they would have to be on the spectrum themselves to be there. Incidentally, the "pity friend" I am talking about IS on the spectrum: in fact she said she was severely affected as a kid but then got cured because "God gave her another chnce in life". But she never said how that happened, other than speech therapy, which doesn't really explain it. All I can say is that she looks completely NT now and I would never be able to tell she is on the spectrum. So it is quite ironic she actually said she was severe, since nobody would say that about me: I have Asperger which by definition means I am not any more severe than Level 1.

But in any case, leaving that girl aside and talking about others: most people are not on the spectrum. Thats just statistics. So that kinda rules out Group d.

So now that I ruled out both Group c and Group d, that pretty much leaves me with Groups a and b. Would you agree that most people fall into these two groups?

In this case, Group a being one of the two most likely groups is what keeps me talking about "why others don't like me". Unless you are going to say that "group b is more common than group a", which is a possibility I haven't ruled out yet.



Well, its a common place to assume that others already know certain things and then not mention them on the basis that they are already known. Yes, it would take just a sentence to say "the reason I don't approach people is because I don't know how". But then it would take another sentence to say something else, and yet another sentence to say something else, etc. and then it would add up to 100 pages. So at some point we have to assume that something is obvious enough not to even say a single sentence. For example, it might take 1 sentence to say the earth is round, but I simply don't bother saying it. And we have to do the same thing with a lot of other things too.

The trick is to know when to assume that others already know it, and when not. The word WHEN is the key work here. And that is the part I am struggling with. Because if you look at my posts, I actually spell out a lot more things than most people: thats why my posts are so long. Yet I didn't mention social anxiety thing, even though it would have taken just a sentence or two to mention. So that tells you that I simply didn't realize WHAT needs spelling out and WHAT doesn't. Thats why I spell out so much more stuff than most people, yet still don't spell out some of the things I should have.

I guess that is something that some might refer to as theory of mind. Although it is a different kind of theory of mind from Sally/Anne test. In case of Sally/Anne test you can just figure it out by logic, so I am actually puzzled why autistics fail it since they are supposed to be good with logic. But in case of what I am talking about here you can't use logic to figure out what needs to be spelled out and what doesn't. You need an experience. And the experience is what I don't have.

Here is why I couldn't use logic to figure it out in my case. Lets say I say I have sore throat. Most people would know its because of cold rather than because I swallowed something sharp. Why? Because cold is very common. So I assumed that social anxiety is common too. Thats why I assumed people would know that if I say I have hard time approaching people thats social anxiety. I guess I was wrong in assuming they would know it. But I didn't know it till now.

But now that I finally realized that I need to spell it out, here it goes:

--- In case of pity friend (this thread) or one woman two years ago ( viewtopic.php?t=381471 ) no social anxiety is not an issue.

--- In case of the vast majority of people (of both genders) other than those few, yes it very much is.

Speaking of said "vast majority of people", let me give you an example. So yesterday I was on a train. A girl a seat in front of me was sitting by herself. She kept stretching her hands. I was not sure if she was trying to get my attention, since she was by herself, or not. Then they made announcement that they don't have wifi because they forgot to pay the bill, but they have "windows live" that is so much more fun (referring to looking out the window). She laughed. Since the person making the announcement woudln't hear her laugh, and I was the only person nearby, was she trying to "laugh with me" about it? But then again, I was not sitting next to her, I was sitting behind her. So how was I supposed to respond?

You see, even right now sitting from the safety of my own home, I actually can't answer the following two questions:

--- Was she trying to get my attention or no?

--- If she was, how could have I responed?

So maybe part of it is not even an anxiety but a simple fact that I don't actually know the way to respond that most people know. So maybe doing something I don't know how to do *is* in fact a bad idea, since then I would say or do something really weird in the process of trying.

And then here is the other thing. You see how in her case I was suspecting she was inviting me to talk? With most other people I feel the exact opposite. So maybe other people don't want to talk to me, which is precisely what I am complainign about.

Oh as a matter of fact I just remembered something else. Back in 2001 I used to actually puzzle "what it is about me that I don't know how to keep the conversation going". But then that woman in a Jewish club I told you about in the other thread told me "if people don't want to talk to you they wouldn't say anything, they would just go to the other end of the room". So thats what made me switch from "what is it about me that I don't know how to approach people" to "what is it about other people that they don't want to approach me first". But its still true that I don't know how to approach people. I am just not focusing on it as much.

I think you answered your own question here: most of the time, people could spare a few minutes, but since that's all they could give, they think it won't make a difference and won't do it. Plus, if they did give you the few minutes, they might fear that you'd try to take up more of their time than they can afford and are too polite to say that they don't have the time, so it's better for them to not take the risk.

But honestly, most likely it's because they don't feel like you have anything to give, and by anything to give I mean even simple things like an interesting conversation. Extreme majority of people don't over analyze their every interaction, especially not with random strangers, so they just act by instinct on what feels good at the moment. I think that's what people call chemistry.



You misread this one. I didn't say "they would have to be on the spectrum", I said "like people on the spectrum." This means that while people on the spectrum might miss these things because they're on the spectrum, those not on the spectrum could miss things too.

BTW, even among those who have Asperger, the severity level of it varies. Some are able to live a relatively normal life, while some can't even properly live independently.



Actually, I'd still say group C is the most common.



True. Sometimes you can use logic on these things, but often not. Like, when you tell about your problems on this forum, you can assume that people know you're on the autism spectrum because this is a support site, but if you tell about your problems in real life, you can't assume the people you're talking to know you're on the spectrum, unless you're doing it in a support group.



I'm not following. How could laughing to a joke be some kind of invitation to interact with her? Laughing is usually an automatic reaction to something funny, regardless if others are around or not. I laugh when I read something funny, regardless of if others are around or not.

Yet they do spare few minutes on each other. So why is it they can spare few minutes on each other yet they can't spare those same few minutes on me?



Do you think its because they see that I am lonely? So if they spend few minutes on someone who isn't lonely, that person wouldn't take up more time, but if they spend few minutes on someone who is lonely they might. And thats why, ironically, they are talking to people that aren't lonely and avoid people that are?

Or do you think its not just loneliness but also the fact that I am not socially aware. So someone socially aware would know that its not polite to take too much of their time, but if someone is not socially aware then who knows what they will do?



So how do they know that I won't give "interesting conversation" unless they talk to me on the first place?

Incidentally, this is something my mom keeps harping on, when she tries to get me to stop doing physics and watch a movie. She is saying that because I spend all my time with physics I end up not being an interesting person and that others can see it. However, I don't think she cares about the same aspects as other people do. Her version of "being interesting" is being cultured. But I don't think people my age are cultured in my mom's sense anyway. So whatever she nags me to do is irrelevant.

I guess what is more relevant are the things that people my age know -- and those are the things my mom doesn't know either. For example, a couple of weeks ago when I talked to my building manager as to why my roommate won't trust me to clean, he said "I was going to ask you whether you would trust Simpson with a knife, but you probably don't know who that is, so let me instead ask you whether you would trust Stalin with an army". Now, he was right: I don't know who Simpson is. But the question is: how did he find out about it?

The way its relevant is that, just like he found out I don't know who Simpson is, maybe thats how everyone else finds out I won't be able to have "interesting conversation". But the question is: how do they find out any of it before they talk to me?



But if we are talking about situations where I complain, then they would overanalyze it, because my complaining forces them to.

Now, in 99% of cases I don't complain. But then there is 1% of cases when I do, and that 1% is quite significant since most people don't do even that. So since we were discussing the 1% of people I complain to, then those people "would" overanalyze the way they talk, since thats what my complaining is about.



Yeah and that is what I keep complaining about: why is it I don't have chemistry with other people?

Incidentally, thats the other reason why I kept rejecting your advice to just approach them and talk to them myself. Because that wouldn't change the fact that there is "no chemistry". If there was "chemistry" they would have come and talked to me.

I guess I didn't think of the word chemistry back when I complained about it before. But now that you reminded me of that word, maybe you will understand my complaint better.



Okay if 30% of people miss those things and only 1% of people on the spectrum, it won't be very logical to use 1% as an example of 30%. So that seems to suggest that maybe only 5% of people miss it or so.

But if I misunderstood you, please correct me. How would you estimate the fraction of people that miss it?



I thought part of the definition of Asperger is that they CAN live independently. Because Asperger is supposed to be high functioning.

Could it be that you meant to say "autism" and you just said Asperger because of a typo?



Thanks for clarifying this. It actually matches what "plain observation" would tell me. Its just that sometimes I don't trust plain observation and instead wonder if people dislike me and hiding it -- which is when I would theorize about groups 1 and 2. But if I just approach it naively and go by what I see then yeah they look like group 3.



That is precisely why I didn't spell out that I actually "don't know" how to start a conversation as opposed to just being stubborn. I assumed that, since it is Asperger support site, everyone would be able to deduce it. I guess I was wrong because Asperger affects different people differently.



Actually, even with your interpretation, it still illustrates my point. So, until you told me she wasn't trying to talk to me, I actually didn't know whether she did or not. Now, if I were to "err on the side of assuming people want to talk to me" I would have tried to talk to that girl and look like a fool. The only thing that "saved" me from this is that I have a tendency to "err on the side that others don't want to talk to me". The "good" outcome of this is that I "didn't" try to talk to this girl yet the "bad" outcome of this is that I also don't try to talk to a bunch of other people, some of which might want to talk to me.

In other words, in order to make good decisions whom to talk to and whom not to, I have to be able to tell who wants to talk to me and who doesn't. Obviously I can't tell. Thats why some people who don't want to talk to me (such as this girl) I suspect that they do, and then others who do want to talk to me, I suspect that they don't. So that is why I am trying to be cautious and avoid approaching people, since I don't know how to read them.

I'd say there's something in the vibe you give off that turns people away. It could be body language, the look on your face, your appearance... probably varies case by case.



The first is possible, I suppose, but somehow sounds unlikely. I mean, I don't think it's easy for anyone to tell that someone's lonely by just looking at them.

Yes, this second one makes sense. Not that people can know for sure if you're socially aware or not, but if you give a vibe that's somehow off to people, they're likely to avoid you.



Instinct, probably. Of course, they could be wrong, but if they're right most of the time, they learn to trust it.



Your mom might miss the target a bit, but she has a point: people find it easier to talk about familiar subjects. If one knows the things that are currently "in", at least on the surface level, like stuff about sports, movies, recent events etc. they're likelier to do well in small talk, which in turn can lead to conversations with deeper meanings.



Your building manager probably knew by thinking that you don't seem like the kind of person who's interested in stuff like that. As for other people, I think it's the instinct thing mentioned above.



Does it? I think that many people will still think of those things in simple ways that come naturally to them.



Don't know. Those on the spectrum often apparently have a body language that pushes people away.

Um no, that's not really how it works... how do I explain this? People often test to see if there's chemistry with body language, so if you're just sitting somewhere passively, you're not actually giving off any signs that people could catch? You know, like eye contact and a smile at the right time... I think?



Impossible to say. There are those who are socially clumsy by nature, but then there are situations where those who are normally socially aware don't do so well. This can happen when someone normally socially skilled is tired, stressed or in a bad mood, so their ability to act in full capacity at that moment is flawed and they'll make mistakes they normally wouldn't.



Nah, I meant Asperger. We are high functioning when compared to those with classical autism, or at least that's how I've understood it. Of course, some aspies might actually have a different form of autism and have been misdiagnosed, but I know so many aspies with official diagnoses who aren't really capable of independent life that they can't all be misdiagnosed.

Then again, this also depends a bit on what one means by "independent life." To me it means someone who can make a living, take care of a household of their own on their own (cleaning, cooking, bills, that kinda stuff) and handle their every day life without outside help. Needing help with some rarer stuff like changing tires to a car or installing a washing machine isn't included in my definition.



...Right, this one's actually on me, I suppose. I feel like that is something I should've been able to figure out on a forum like this. Sorry.

The good things is that google is your friend; I think you might find some advice by googling "conversation starters" or "how to start a conversation" or something similiar.



If you would've looked like a fool or not would've depended on how you started the conversation, not on if her laughter was an invitation to talk with her or not. If you'd started a conversation by asking if her laughter was an invitation to talk, that would've most likely made things awkward even if she did want to talk to you. If you'd started a conversation by saying "That was pretty clever, wasn't it?" referring to the joke, then that wouldn't look bad or make things awkward.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. You finally admitted that people have "instinct" that tells me there is something "off" yet I can't do anything about it since its "just an instinct" and I am not told what actions can actually alter it. Yet I am facing consequences of something I have no control over. Which is so unfair.

It is unfair people judge me by "their instincts" rather than "my actions". I can alter my actions but I can't alter "their instincts". Thats what I keep complaining about.

No, you can do things about it. For example, if their instincts warn them about you because you're smelly and messy, traits that are often linked to alcoholics and such, you can fix that by not being smelly and messy. If the problem is your behavior, you can change your behavior.

Also, everyone is judged by instinct at times, so it's not unfair at all. If you get judged negatively more often than others, then that's just a sign that there's likely to really be something you should fix.

And by the way, you're being a hypocrite now. In your other thread, you judged a woman to be a certain kind of person just because of the way she dressed. How is that supposed to be any different from people judging you by something they see at first glance?

What a jerk you are.

Okay look, if you read the rest of my posts you will see that basically I am dealing with ostracism. And what I did here is one of my ways of dealing with it. So no I am not trying to be a jerk, I wish I could find a better ways of dealing with my situation. But since I feel stuck and its ongoing thats why I have to resort to things like that from time to time.

Here you used the word "if" a lot. You are basically say "if you know its X, then you can do Y". But do I really know its X? Thats a different question.

If you read your previous reply you indicated yourself you don't really know. Basically I kept asking you "why do people do Z" (expecting a concrete answer) and you said "its just instincts" (indicating there is no concrete answer). So that basically means that you aren't really sure what it is, and neither am I.

I guess I can use trial and error. For example, I am visitting my mom in California this winter, and she took me to her hairdresser who gave me hair cut. So now I look a lot more neat. So when I get back to school in January 7 I can see whether this helped me or not.

Now, what if I find it would not help me? I guess its hard to find what else to put a finger on.

P.S. As far as "hypocricy" with regards to that girl, I already addressed it in that other thread (see my Dec 30 posts at viewtopic.php?t=401536 )