Page 2 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


How do you interpret what happened
Explanation 1 29%  29%  [ 2 ]
Explanation 2 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Explanation 3 29%  29%  [ 2 ]
Other 43%  43%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 7

Summer_Twilight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,137

29 Oct 2021, 11:56 am

I am confused about the polls and the really long post but I will reply because this is a very important topic.

The "I'm busy" excuse is a passive aggressive unwritten rule that people use in hopes that the other party will get the message that they are not interested. They use is rather than being being direct or assertive about why they don't want to associate with that party.

This unwritten social rule can be very hard for people who live on the spectrum who do tend to think in black and white. It was particularly hard for me back in my mid-twenties. (It seems like I was just there yesterday too).

I remember associating with one person who kept calling me a friend but she was not very reliable. Though she would often tell me "We need to get together," I would often ask her only to get, "Unfortunately, I am busy this weekend. I have to babysit my sisters."

Then another time, when I tried reaching out to a former childhood friend, who never responded to one of my emails, it was "I am sorry but I am busy with work, I will call you in a few days.

I believed them every time but at the same time, I felt like they were neglecting our friendship so I started getting upset with them.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

29 Oct 2021, 1:01 pm

Summer_Twilight wrote:
I am confused about the polls and the really long post but I will reply because this is a very important topic.

The "I'm busy" excuse is a passive aggressive unwritten rule that people use in hopes that the other party will get the message that they are not interested. They use is rather than being being direct or assertive about why they don't want to associate with that party.

This unwritten social rule can be very hard for people who live on the spectrum who do tend to think in black and white. It was particularly hard for me back in my mid-twenties. (It seems like I was just there yesterday too).

I remember associating with one person who kept calling me a friend but she was not very reliable. Though she would often tell me "We need to get together," I would often ask her only to get, "Unfortunately, I am busy this weekend. I have to babysit my sisters."

Then another time, when I tried reaching out to a former childhood friend, who never responded to one of my emails, it was "I am sorry but I am busy with work, I will call you in a few days.

I believed them every time but at the same time, I felt like they were neglecting our friendship so I started getting upset with them.


Actually, none of those people said "I am busy" rather they said "you are busy". The only reason I brought up "I am busy" is to make an analogy. Namely, the analogy is as follows:

--- We both agree that people who say "I am busy" aren't really busy but rather use it as an excuse not to interact with you

--- So by the same token, maybe people who say "you are busy" don't actually mean that the other person is busy but instead they also use it as an excuse not to interact with the other person?

In any case, the waitresses I was discussing didn't say they were busy. They said I was the one who looked busy with all my work. But I was wondering if that was an excuse, just busi-ness attributed to a different side.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

29 Oct 2021, 1:02 pm

Fireblossom wrote:
QFT wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
Why all the yelling?


When I put things in caps I don't mean it as yelling, I meant it as an emphasis. I know a lot of people misunderstand this so I need to learn to use other things for emphasize besides this one. But for a record I wasn't mad at you. In fact I am glad you are trying to take time to explain other people's perspective.

In any case, I have a meeting with my thesis advisor in a couple of hours. I will get back to replying to the rest of what you wrote after that.


Oh okay. Usually, caps are known to be yelling. For emphasis, italics are commonly used. Would lessen misunderstandings.


Thanks for understanding. Sometimes I feel like italis will not be seen as easily the way caps would be. But I guess that is one of the things where I have to just trust people. Because a lot of people tell me to use italics instead of caps.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

29 Oct 2021, 3:18 pm

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
But on my end of the line I *perceived* our conversation to go like this:

Me: I am really upset about a, b, c and d

You: It has nothing to do with a, b, c or d. Its just the fact that you don't start conversation yourself (or something else OUTSIDE of a,b,c,d)

Me: No, I still think its a, b, c and d


Now I'm very confused; what are these a, b, c and d that you say I talked about? Can you single out the actual things instead of letters?


These are the things I was referring to:

QFT wrote:
a) Men are more prone to violence in general and so women who don't know me are likely to be more wary of me
b) People are wary of me because of poor hygine
c) My body language puts people off
d) I am just less appealing to talk to than most people


Fireblossom wrote:
Or are

Quote:
a) Men are more prone to violence in general and so women who don't know me are likely to be more wary of me
b) People are wary of me because of poor hygine
c) My body language puts people off
d) I am just less appealing to talk to than most people

the a, b, c and d you're talking about?


Yes

Fireblossom wrote:
If so, then you've misunderstood what I've been saying. I've been saying that those are possible reasons along side other things, such as you not starting a conversation, either.


I guess it is hard for me to see how these can really be "alongside other things such as starting a conversation". Because I don't see how "starting a conversation" can really fix a, b, c and d.

Fireblossom wrote:
Plus, even if they originally answer just to be polite, at some point as they learn more about you they might actually come to the conclusion that you're the type of person that is interesting to them and then start conversations with you themselves.


Would someone *else* start the conversation with me based off of them watching me as I talk to them? This would be even better since then I would be able to say "here is the person that started talking to me first", which clearly doesn't apply to them.

I did notice by the way that during rare occasions when I happen to be talking to someone, other people are somewhat more likely to talk to me too. So I feel kinda bad when, few years ago, a group of my male professor, his male colleagues and his male students were routinely having lunch together and I wasn't joining them despite them wondering why not. Perhaps females would have been more likely to talk to me if I did? But I am no longer at that school so its too late in that regard.

Fireblossom wrote:
Friendships, and relationships even less so, won't be carried to you on a silver platter; you need to put in effort to create them.


Maybe this is one of the points where I might not be on the same page. Because I keep assuming that most NT-s do get friendships/relationsihps "on a silver platter" without any effort, thats why I am complaining.

Let me give you a contrast-example to illustrate my point. I know persfectly well that if I take a class I need to put in an effort to get an A. So I would never complain about this, because I know everyone has to do that too. But socially, I don't think others have to do that, thats why I am complaining.

In fact, if I were to put the same effort into social interactions as I do on physics, I might be doing great who knows. I mean, reading physics books is certainly a lot more difficult than reading some social interactions stuff off the internet. But the whole point is that social interactions aren't "supposed" to take that much effort, thats why I am not putting in.

Interestingly, with regards to this topic, I hear different people say different thing. On the one hand, both my mom and my ex from 10 years ago are both saying it should take effort, even for NT-s. But on the other hand there are others (both aspies and NT-s) who are saying that for NT-s it comes without effort. I remember the following conversation I had with that ex (back when we were dating):

My ex: I know perfectly well that when you are rude you aren't doing it on purpose (maliciously). But thats not an excuse. Because everyone puts effort into social interactions, and you should put the same effort everyone else does.

Me: So are you saying that if NT-s were to stop putting effort they would all be rude to each other?

My ex: Yes

Me: But then why aren't you seeing lazy people being rude to each other? For example, students who are doing really badly at school, why aren't they all rude?

My ex: They are lazy with regards to certain things but not other things. They might be too lazy to put in the effort into school work, but they aren't too lazy to put effort into social interaction.

And with my mom I had similar conversation, where she agrees with my ex. My mom gave me an example that once she saw, at a party, a husband telling his wife "lets go home, so we can take a breather from straining ourselves" and she said that everyone "strain themselves" when they are in a social situations, not just that couple.

But I guess I have hard time believing both my ex and my mom because, like I said, I talked to some other people who disagree with them. So I am thinking that maybe my mom and my ex aren't as socially fluent as some other people and their advice is based off of their own experience? I remember that when I was just starting talking to my ex, she said she was suspecting she is undiagnosed aspie. But then, later on, she backed off from saying it. Probably because she saw that my problems are much worse than her. Similarly, in case of my mom, she said she was very shy and afraid of strangers when she was little but then she grew out of it as an adult due to the effort she was putting in. So who knows maybe my mom shares some aspie genetics with me, its possible.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
a) I do NOT want to be suspected as someone prone to violence if I know FOR A FACT I am not violent


What you want is irrelevant for people who want to stay safe. And it's not like any of those women know you're not violent, just like they won't know that of any other stranger, either. It's better to be wary of everyone than to trust everyone and take the risk that one comes across someone who wasn't worth the trust.


I guess one way in which they may know, is that I am at university rather than at a gang, and these types of people don't get violent.

Actually I remember making that point few years ago at a different message board. And someone told me that all men are prone to violence. I then asked what about my professors, would "they" harass women? And that poster said yes, its possible.

I guess to me its just hard to believe.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
b) I do NOT want to be equated as homeless because I know for a fact I am not homeless


Again, others can't know that for a fact, especially if you look like a homeless person. If you want to lessen the amount of times you get mistaken for one, do something about it.


Yeah, but what about all the years that were lost due to this?

Thats THE reason I wish to interact with women in their late 20-s. Because I WOULD HAVE interacted with them if I took care of my appearance back at the day. I didn't. So now I want to make up for the missed opportunity.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
c) I do NOT want people to mistake my body language as if I am hostile if thats not the message I want to communicate


No one does, but avoiding someone with hostile body language raises a person's chances of survival. That's just a fact.


So are you saying that folded arms doesn't just mean I don't want to talk but rather it also means I am violent?

Fireblossom wrote:
One can learn about body language, even us on the spectrum.


And what about all the years that were lost?

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
So to use your candy example, if I like caramel less than chocolate, but someone persistently offers me caramel then I will eat caramel, but that doesn't change the fact that I like it less than chocolate. So if my goal is to actually make someone LIKE caramel better than chocolate, then offering them to eat caramel is not going to accomplish that goal. Yes, they will eat it, but they will still like it less. Well, in my case I actually want to be LIKED as opposed to simply talk. Thats why initiating conversation is not going to accoplish that goal.


So, one could say you're caramel and the other people chocolate in your example? I get your point, but think of this: you don't know which people around you like caramel if you don't check. They may have never tried caramel (=have never talked to you) and think they don't like caramel, but once you go and offer them caramel (=go and talk to them), they might notice that they like it after all. Or not, but then you and them will know.


Thats the exact question I have for them. How do they know for certain they wouldn't like me, if they never even tried talking to me. Maybe, just like you say they would like me if they talk to me. But apparently they don't agree, as evident by them not trying to talk to me. And thats the very thing that hurts so badly. So its like them telling me that some of my faux passes makes it so certain that I am not worth getting to know, that they wouldn't even try.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
Now, to answer your hygine quesiton, as I mentioend earlier I started taking shower regularly FOR A WHILE. But as of now I fell back on my old habits because, once again, I am not taking shower every day. Now, nobody told me nowdays that I smell. They did, however, tell me that in the past. So I guess I could assume that since in the past not taking shower made me smell and right now, once again, I don't take shower, then there is a good chance that I smell again and people are just too polite to tell me this. Or the other possibility is maybe I don't smell because I still take shower once in few days just not every day or perhaps I change clothes more. It can go both ways.


It's good that you're improving, but keep in mind that good hygiene is also about brushing teeth, having clean clothes etc.


Oh yeah, and I don't brush teeth. Which of course is the other issue altogether since I might get cavities that way. Thank you for reminding me though, I will make a dentist appointment.

But is it that apparent to others when I don't brush teeth? My mom says yes, and that she can easily see I haven't burshed them. But I am not sure about others who don't look at me as closely as my mom does.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
I also feel like I am not being regarded as fully human. You mentioned men are prone to violence (which I am NOT). Yet women naturally assume that I am. And the fact that women are likely to talk to other women more than men that kinda shows they don't see men as fully human. And the fact that they do talk to men "sometimes" but not me, shows that they see me as even less of a human than other men. And it hurts.


You're jumping to conclusions. First of all, I said that statistically men are likelier to harm women than other women, not that women assume that you are violent. And I have no idea how women rather talking to other women would mean they don't see men as fully human. Where did you pull that one from?


Well, at least the men that attack women are less human. First of all, they clearly don't relate to women they attack as fellow humans. And secondly they don't even have their own human needs either, since they don't mind risking jail sentence for this.

Fireblossom wrote:
Besides, you've said yourself that you'd rather talk to women than other men, so wouldn't that mean that, with whatever logic you used above, you see men as less human than women.


Maybe in a sense that men have less emotions and apparently lesser need to emotionally connect. I don't put myself into that category because, as an aspie, I am different from others (both from men and from women). But in terms of what people seek out of social interactions in some respects I can relate more to women than to men (at least when it comes to "emotionally supportive conversations" I mentioned earlier) thats why it feels frustrating that I am excluded from that.

Fireblossom wrote:
But then again, it's also a fact that some things do have more fans among women than men, so for a woman who is very in to some of those things (examples of such things: make up, sewing like you said, romance novels, decorating, flower arranging... basically, the stereo typically female things) it is logical to talk to other women.


Well, as far as romance is concerned, I would find that topic interesting too. I mean see how much I am talking about not having a girlfriend. So romance is what I am missing. If most men aren't interested in romance, then why are they looking for a girlfriend? Apparently they just want sex. So then its no wonder why women perceive men as creeps. I don't even see why sex should be such a big deal anyway: there are plenty of other sensory pleasant things, such as nice food or what not. To me the whole entire point in a relationship is emotional connection. And thats why I would be interested in talking about romance.

But as far as other things, such as makeup and sewing, I agree with you that I won't be interested in those topics. But I doubt thats what female conversation is focused on. If it was, then I wouldn't feel so bad I am not part of it. But to me it sounded like they were talking about things other than that.

As far as flower arranging, I have a totally different perspective on flowers. I feel bad for flowers being torn from the ground and I prefer flowers in a soil. So I guess I wouldn't be on the same page with them due to this. I do remember liking flowers back when I was little kid so I guess I can talk about the topic "what flowers do you like" (irrespective of what is being done to those flowers). But, again, is it REALLY something women spend a lot of time talking about? To me it seems like they are talking about a lot more general topics than this.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
One specific kind of female conversation that I wish I had was the kind where they offer each other emotional support. Lets say they are both stressed working on the homework assignment and they are sort of there for each other. Every time I look at it I think to myself "I feel the same things they are feeling but they don't even know it; they assume I am some kind of robot since they won't offer me the kind of emotional support they offer each other".


But why should they offer such support to you? What have you done to deserve it? These types of things, at least from what I've seen, happen between people who've first worked on the friendship between each other. Why would they give to a stranger for free something that they themselves have worked for?


I haven't thought of it this way. I thought that what they are giving to each other is natural caring about a fellow human being, as opposed to a "reward" for something they "earned".

As far as friendship, I totally agree with you that this is something I should have. As a matter of fact, an ongoing friendship would have a lot more value than an occasional sympathy, just for the very fact that it is ongoing. The sympathy example was just an example of the emotional connection that I am missing out. And there are lots of other examples too. But I want friendship and everything that goes with it.

However, I don't see lack of friendship as "me" not working towards it, I am seeing it as "them" not accepting me into their circle of friends. I mean what would be the first steps of my working towards it? I don't even see where to start if they aren't talkign to me on the first place.

This also goes back to the other thing I talked about a bit earlier. Do people "really" work on their friendships? I suppose if it is someone important, they might. But in the majority of situations friendships just happen spontaneously, or at least it looks that way.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

29 Oct 2021, 3:58 pm

TenMinutes wrote:
People won't generally respect your busy-ness if you are so accessible. They will judge your busy-ness by your reaction to their interruption. And if you don't convey emotion accurately (I don't) you may not give the impression you intend. If you seem unreceptive to interruption, whether that's your intent or not, they may use "didn't want to bother you" as an excuse to avoid an awkward encounter. And to be clear, this was an awkward encounter, whether you intended it or not. You disclosed way more than is comfortable for most people.


Are you referring to the fact that I wasn't receptive (sentences 1-3) or are you referring to the fact that I disclosed too much (sentence 5). It sounds like you see a connection between these two things since you put them in the same paragraph. Can you elaborate what that connection is?

TenMinutes wrote:
One way you can signal a willingness to be interrupted from your reading is to rest your arms on your books and papers. This signals that, at the moment, you aren't reading and won't be reading again until you uncover your work.


What tends to happen is that it is hard for me to stay focused for a long time so I space out a lot. That is actually "why" I end up studying for such a long time: probably if I didn't space out I would have finished it much quicker. Now, when I space out, I still think about physics, just not the physics that is in front of me. For example, I might think of some of the physics ideas I want to impliment in my future papers or something like that. As I do that, I tend to stare off into the space. So they can probably see that I am not looking at the books. Although I am not looking at people either *UNLESS* I am obsessing as to "why don't they talk to me", in which case I would stare at them.



Summer_Twilight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,137

30 Oct 2021, 12:00 pm

QFT, again, that’s an unwritten social rule that allows a person to be passive aggressive.

Some of the reasons people act this way is obvious. They don’t want to be upfront with us because they don’t know how we will act. I understand because people are so unpredictable.

Main reasons-
1. We did or say things that made them feel uncomfortable

2. They aren’t interested in the activities you participate in

3. They are losing their interest in you

Then sometimes we make assumptions that someone really is busy with something so we don’t bother them.



Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,567

30 Oct 2021, 1:40 pm

QFT wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
If so, then you've misunderstood what I've been saying. I've been saying that those are possible reasons along side other things, such as you not starting a conversation, either.


I guess it is hard for me to see how these can really be "alongside other things such as starting a conversation". Because I don't see how "starting a conversation" can really fix a, b, c and d.


Starting a conversation won't fix a, b, c or d, but it can lessen their impact. For example, let's say that you're in a room, and a person who wants to socialize with someone new walks in to that room. The person sees you, but is put off by one of those four things (or something else.) Then, you notice that person and decide to go talk. With how much NTs love their social rules, the chances that that person will answer you because it's polite are high. So, while this person is talking to you out of politeness, they might notice during that talk that you're someone they find interesting after all.

Quote:
Would someone *else* start the conversation with me based off of them watching me as I talk to them? This would be even better since then I would be able to say "here is the person that started talking to me first", which clearly doesn't apply to them.


It's not guaranteed, but yes, it can happen. Has happened to me in hobby events, though usually for me to first be in the company of someone else, I have to do the approaching. It seems that NTs prefer approaching small groups over people that are on their own. I don't know why, but my theory is that if they approach one person, the person's entire attention will be on them and it can be awkward (or something similiar), but if they approach a pair or a group, they won't have the people's entire attention and thus it's less pressure. It probably also has something to do with the possibility of not liking the new person; if one approaches someone and finds them to be unpleasant company, it might be easier to leave the said person if there are other people who will stay with that person. But these are just my guesses.

Quote:
Maybe this is one of the points where I might not be on the same page. Because I keep assuming that most NT-s do get friendships/relationsihps "on a silver platter" without any effort, thats why I am complaining.


I'm sure it takes different amounts of effort for different NTs and there are probably some who don't need to work for it but, generally, starting and keeping up a friendship does take work.

Quote:
Let me give you a contrast-example to illustrate my point. I know persfectly well that if I take a class I need to put in an effort to get an A. So I would never complain about this, because I know everyone has to do that too. But socially, I don't think others have to do that, thats why I am complaining.


People with a talent in math have to put in way less effort to get an A in math than people without talent in it. Likewise, socially talented people have to put in way less effort in to succeeding socially than socially talent-less people. If people talented in math getting better results in math without putting in effort is fair, why would people talented in socializing getting better results in socializing not be?

Quote:
In fact, if I were to put the same effort into social interactions as I do on physics, I might be doing great who knows. I mean, reading physics books is certainly a lot more difficult than reading some social interactions stuff off the internet. But the whole point is that social interactions aren't "supposed" to take that much effort, thats why I am not putting in.


You're on the autism spectrum; you are supposed to have more trouble in socializing than an average person. How about comparing yourself to other people on the spectrum instead of NTs? Apples and oranges, you know.

BTW, many socially well doing people have actually studied about social interaction, they just don't make much noise about it.

Quote:
Interestingly, with regards to this topic, I hear different people say different thing. On the one hand, both my mom and my ex from 10 years ago are both saying it should take effort, even for NT-s. But on the other hand there are others (both aspies and NT-s) who are saying that for NT-s it comes without effort.


Reading social cues comes without effort to most NTs in comparison to those on the spectrum, but that's a different thing than upholding friendships, which takes effort. Or well, in some cases only one side puts in effort, but those are usually unhealthy friendships.

Quote:
And with my mom I had similar conversation, where she agrees with my ex. My mom gave me an example that once she saw, at a party, a husband telling his wife "lets go home, so we can take a breather from straining ourselves" and she said that everyone "strain themselves" when they are in a social situations, not just that couple.


Yes, everyone does strain themselves in social situations (unless there are some rare exceptions), but how much and how fast one gets strained in a social situation varies a lot. On average, us on the spectrum seem to get strained faster than NTs. Likewise, introverts tire out faster than extroverts.

Quote:
I guess one way in which they may know, is that I am at university rather than at a gang, and these types of people don't get violent.

Actually I remember making that point few years ago at a different message board. And someone told me that all men are prone to violence. I then asked what about my professors, would "they" harass women? And that poster said yes, its possible.

I guess to me its just hard to believe.


There are lots of highly intelligent, highly educated dangerous criminals.

Quote:
Yeah, but what about all the years that were lost due to this?

Thats THE reason I wish to interact with women in their late 20-s. Because I WOULD HAVE interacted with them if I took care of my appearance back at the day. I didn't. So now I want to make up for the missed opportunity.


Nothing you can do about that. Getting focused on something like that is unhealthy.

But if you really want to hang out with younger women, I'd recommend finding a hobby that has them and that also interests you. And if you find such a group, make sure to hang out with the guys there too, 'cause if it becomes clear you only pay attention to women, not to mention much younger ones, you'll look like a creep and that's what you want to avoid. Basically, treat everyone else there as well as you treat the young women.

Quote:
So are you saying that folded arms doesn't just mean I don't want to talk but rather it also means I am violent?


Certain kind of body language can give off such an impression, yes. I remember scaring little kids at work practice when I was a teenager 'cause I kept squinting my eyes due to the sunshine and the kids thought I was angry because of the way it made me look.

Quote:
And what about all the years that were lost?


They're just that, lost. And if you keep obsessing about it, you'll be in the danger of losing even more years.

Quote:
Thats the exact question I have for them. How do they know for certain they wouldn't like me, if they never even tried talking to me. Maybe, just like you say they would like me if they talk to me. But apparently they don't agree, as evident by them not trying to talk to me. And thats the very thing that hurts so badly. So its like them telling me that some of my faux passes makes it so certain that I am not worth getting to know, that they wouldn't even try.


Maybe, but it's also possible that some of them are thinking the exact same things as you... and really, it's not like people owe you anything. You aren't entitled to anyone's time and attention.

Quote:
But is it that apparent to others when I don't brush teeth? My mom says yes, and that she can easily see I haven't burshed them. But I am not sure about others who don't look at me as closely as my mom does.


People who see you from afar shouldn't be able to tell unless your teeth are really unclean, but people who actually talk to you face to face are likely to notice (unless you're wearing a mask in these times of covid.) And even if they don't see anything, they might smell your bad breath. People who're lazy with brushing their teeth usually have that.

Quote:
Well, at least the men that attack women are less human.


On this we agree on, but I think the same of men who attack other men. Self defense is, of course, allowed.

Quote:
Maybe in a sense that men have less emotions and apparently lesser need to emotionally connect. I don't put myself into that category because, as an aspie, I am different from others (both from men and from women). But in terms of what people seek out of social interactions in some respects I can relate more to women than to men (at least when it comes to "emotionally supportive conversations" I mentioned earlier) thats why it feels frustrating that I am excluded from that.


This is an interesting take. If you're right and an average man doesn't really need emotional connections as much as average women, then doesn't that make it natural for people around you, men and women alike, to assume that you're like the other men and thus don't need such connections? I mean, how could they know that you desire emotional connections more than an average man would if you never tell them so?

That said, I'm not sure about men not needing emotional support as much as women. I think that it's just a result of the culture not allowing men to show feelings that can be considered weakness the way women are allowed to.

Quote:
Well, as far as romance is concerned, I would find that topic interesting too. I mean see how much I am talking about not having a girlfriend. So romance is what I am missing. If most men aren't interested in romance, then why are they looking for a girlfriend? Apparently they just want sex. So then its no wonder why women perceive men as creeps. I don't even see why sex should be such a big deal anyway: there are plenty of other sensory pleasant things, such as nice food or what not. To me the whole entire point in a relationship is emotional connection. And thats why I would be interested in talking about romance.


Let's remember that it was just an example. And there's a difference between wanting to be romantic and wanting to talk about romance. One might want to buy flowers for their girl (or their guy) and cuddle on the couch while eating chocolate, but at the same time they could be completely uninterested in talking about romance fiction or the topic of what does one consider romantic.

Quote:
But as far as other things, such as makeup and sewing, I agree with you that I won't be interested in those topics. But I doubt thats what female conversation is focused on. If it was, then I wouldn't feel so bad I am not part of it. But to me it sounded like they were talking about things other than that.


Again, just an example. Some women talk about those things a lot. My mom and I talk about sewing a lot at times, usually when we have some project that needs that. It's also a common topic in my hobby circles, and men joining in is not as rare as it usually would be outside the hobby.

Quote:
As far as flower arranging, I have a totally different perspective on flowers. I feel bad for flowers being torn from the ground and I prefer flowers in a soil. So I guess I wouldn't be on the same page with them due to this. I do remember liking flowers back when I was little kid so I guess I can talk about the topic "what flowers do you like" (irrespective of what is being done to those flowers). But, again, is it REALLY something women spend a lot of time talking about? To me it seems like they are talking about a lot more general topics than this.


Again, an example. Women interested in flowers will talk about flowers when finding like minded people. Same goes for men interested in flowers, but they seem to be rarer. My former neighbour, a woman, really loves talking about her garden and all the flowers there. Not that I blame her; her garden is really a sight to see.

Quote:
I haven't thought of it this way. I thought that what they are giving to each other is natural caring about a fellow human being, as opposed to a "reward" for something they "earned".


That's one way to look at it, I suppose, but let's remember that everyone has limited time and limited mental resources. If someone lent an ear to everyone who wanted to went, it'd take up too much of their time and would be emotionally exhausting, so they ought to prioritize. How do they do that? By putting friends first.

Quote:
But I want friendship and everything that goes with it.


What do you think this "everything" is? There are a lots of different types of friendships, and most probably won't tick all the boxes.

Quote:
However, I don't see lack of friendship as "me" not working towards it, I am seeing it as "them" not accepting me into their circle of friends. I mean what would be the first steps of my working towards it? I don't even see where to start if they aren't talkign to me on the first place.


How could they accept you in to it if they don't know you want to join? First step is finding someone you want to be friends with, second step is going and talking to that person.

Quote:
This also goes back to the other thing I talked about a bit earlier. Do people "really" work on their friendships? I suppose if it is someone important, they might. But in the majority of situations friendships just happen spontaneously, or at least it looks that way.


I'd say they do, but when you enjoy something or it's easy for you, you don't usually count it as working in the same way than you do when you don't like it or it's hard for you. Like, making sure that the other person gets their turn to talk and keeping in touch are both working on it, but someone who finds it easy won't put much thought in to it.



hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,743
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

30 Oct 2021, 1:53 pm

Reminds me of the kid who wanted to play baseball an no on knew.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

30 Oct 2021, 6:35 pm

Summer_Twilight wrote:
QFT, again, that’s an unwritten social rule that allows a person to be passive aggressive.

Some of the reasons people act this way is obvious. They don’t want to be upfront with us because they don’t know how we will act. I understand because people are so unpredictable.

Main reasons-
1. We did or say things that made them feel uncomfortable

2. They aren’t interested in the activities you participate in

3. They are losing their interest in you

Then sometimes we make assumptions that someone really is busy with something so we don’t bother them.


Thats the exact thing I was suspecting. Except that instead of simply saying its the case, I made an opinion poll as to "whether or not" thats the case. Option 3 was meant to be a statement that yes thats the case. At least thats how I intended to mean it.

In fact what you just said sums up quite well as to why I don't want to follow other people's suggestion and initiate a conversation. Because back when I was 21 I was naive and didn't know that. So I kept trying to make a conversation and was stupidly thinking its me that can't master the ability to make a conversation flow. But then I was finally told that actually it was other people who didn't want to talk to me. That was news to me. I thought that if they like me they say something positive, if they don't like me they say something negative, if they are neutral they won't say anything at all. But I was told that if they don't like me they usually won't say it, "they would just go to the other side of the room". That was a shocker to me.

So now you see why I don't want to approach people? It makes me feel stupid if I keep trying to talk thinking "oh its my inability to make conversation flow" when actually its the other people being passive aggressive. So since the fact that they won't approach me on the first place is ALSO part of "passive aggressive behavior" (as you put it) THATS why approaching them myself would ALSO make me feel stupid. I do get a point that nobody asks me to be trying 10 times in a row (the way I did back then) but I am only asked to try once. So yeah, trying once won't feel as stupid as trying 10 times in a row. But still it would make me feel "stupid enough".

The bottom line is this. If they are being passive aggressive with me, I don't want to pretend as if I am so stupid that I don't see it (which would be the case if I were to initiate the conversation). Now, the only conversation I can start *without* pretending to be "too stupid to see it" is the conversation of the type "why is it you don't talk to me". That is why I "did" have guts to initiate "that" kind of conversation (which I described in the OP). But I don't want to initiate any "other" kind of conversation, until "this" aspect of it is taken care of.

I guess if you ask me why it happened at 21 rather than much earlier, basically i didn't care about friends earlier. But, at 21, I joined a mailing list for autistic students ran by Clare Sainsbury (not to make friends, but just to learn about autism). But then I got banned from that list for talking about various racial theories that I came up with. And, even though I didn't join it "to make friends", I found myself missing some people in that list (particularly a certain woman who was much older than me and who happened to be engaged but her engagement was irrelevancy since I wasn't thinking in those terms since I saw myself just as a little kid (yes I was 21, but psychologically I am much younger than my age)). So, after obsessing about that mailing list and that woman for a few months, I finally decided to join a Jewish club back at Minnesota (the university I used to be at) in order to "replace" the friendships I thought I was making at that mailing list with the friendships at the Jewish club. Now, this wouldn't be the first place I would go to. Rather, it was my mom who kept wanting me to go to Jewish club. And no I didn't tell her about the mailing list. She kept wanting me to go there for few years before mailing list ever happened, but I kept telling her I don't have time. But then, after the mailing list, I thought to myself "okay maybe I should go ahead and go there, lets hope it would help me get over the mailing list obsession". And then when I went to that Jewish club, thats where this whole thing about my desperately trying to talk and not being able to has happened. And then the director of that club approached me few weeks later and told me how there are complaints about me. And thats where she told me that "when people don't like you they won't say anything, they would just go to the other side of the room".

I guess to me that was a shocker because, like I said, this was the first time I even cared about social interactions to begin with. Don't get me wrong. I experienced a lot of bullying from fellow kids as well as a lot of telling off from the adults when I was much younger, but I didn't take any of those things personally. The bullies were just physical threats I wanted to get away from (yes, them physically hitting me was the ONLY thing I was concerned about; I didn't care what they think about me outside of that). As far as adults telling me off, that were usually things I was fully aware I was doing wrong and simply didn't care, so I would just laugh. But then, when I came to the Jewish club at the age of 21 my attitude was totally different because I was liking that girl at the mailing list and wanted to "replace her" with people at the club. Thats why I took it so much more personally than I took anything else before that. But since most other people learn those things much earlier, they weren't really geared to guide me through this properly at the late age of 21. And thats why after that shocker I sort of carried that scar everywhere else.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

31 Oct 2021, 5:12 am

Fireblossom wrote:
QFT wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
If so, then you've misunderstood what I've been saying. I've been saying that those are possible reasons along side other things, such as you not starting a conversation, either.


I guess it is hard for me to see how these can really be "alongside other things such as starting a conversation". Because I don't see how "starting a conversation" can really fix a, b, c and d.


Starting a conversation won't fix a, b, c or d, but it can lessen their impact. For example, let's say that you're in a room, and a person who wants to socialize with someone new walks in to that room. The person sees you, but is put off by one of those four things (or something else.) Then, you notice that person and decide to go talk. With how much NTs love their social rules, the chances that that person will answer you because it's polite are high. So, while this person is talking to you out of politeness, they might notice during that talk that you're someone they find interesting after all.


I see your point. I guess the three main issues is

(i) Since I know that the reasons I have to do it have to do with being perceived negatively, it kinda hurts my pride to do it

(ii) I don't know how to do it anyway. Case in point: few years ago there was a girl in a math class who kept looking at me. It took me a month to finally bring myself to talk to her after class and even after that I couldn't get myself to talk to her again. Now, in this case my pride was not hurt because she clearly liked me based on the signals she gave off. So no it wasn't pride at all. Rather it was the simple fact that I don't know how to bring myself to do it. Now seeing how she made it so much easier, just htink of how much harder it is with everyone else.

(iii) What you said about them changing their minds after they talk to me, that is also unlikely. On the contrary, if I look back at those rare times when I was lucky enough for people to approach me first, it often happened that after we talk for a few minutes they would excuse themselves. And, again, that would happen when THEY started the conversation first. Which means that the way in which I talked to them somehow changed their mind from liking me to not liking me. But now when it comes to people other than them, who already don't like me, that would be even worse. How could I ever get them from not liking me to liking me if with everyone else it tents to go in the opposite direction?

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
Would someone *else* start the conversation with me based off of them watching me as I talk to them? This would be even better since then I would be able to say "here is the person that started talking to me first", which clearly doesn't apply to them.


It's not guaranteed, but yes, it can happen. Has happened to me in hobby events, though usually for me to first be in the company of someone else, I have to do the approaching. It seems that NTs prefer approaching small groups over people that are on their own. I don't know why, but my theory is that if they approach one person, the person's entire attention will be on them and it can be awkward (or something similiar), but if they approach a pair or a group, they won't have the people's entire attention and thus it's less pressure. It probably also has something to do with the possibility of not liking the new person; if one approaches someone and finds them to be unpleasant company, it might be easier to leave the said person if there are other people who will stay with that person. But these are just my guesses.


Yes I also noticed that pattern. I haven't thought of the things you just mentioned though. Instead I was thinking that that they decide that if someone is alone then this person might have some personality flaw that pushed everyone else away, so they don't want to deal with that flaw. What you said, though, sounds a lot less negative than that. So it would be interesting to find out whether its my theory or yours that takes place.

If I go along with your theory, then it is very much true that if they approach me then they would be the center of my attention. But I kept thinking the opposite: since I clearly care about said interaction a lot more than others do, why not give me the exact thing I care about? But I guess if they have selfish perspective then it might make more sense. For example I don't like living with my mother because I don't want to be the center of her attention. Too much pressure.

The other thing you mentioned is that if they happened not to like someone then its harder to leave that person if they are by themselves. But you see, if I ask *why* is it harder, the answer is that you don't want to leave them feeling lonely. But then, by the same token, wouldn't it also be harder not to start talking to them on the first place? Since in this case they would be lonely too? In other words, why would they be "more lonely" if you talk to them and then leave, rather than if you never talk to them at all?

I guess two answers I can come up with are as following:

a) Getting hopes up and then finding out that they were false hopes is in some way even more painful than never getting those hopes up to begin with

b) If people ignore me then "in their universe" I don't exist, and my loneliness doesn't exist either. But if they start talking to me then "in their universe" I begin to exist and then they are faced with the problem of having to keep providing me company

c) They figure that since everyone else apparently left me, maybe they would be more likely to end up leaving too (due to whatever it is that pushed outhers way)

Do you think its either of those three things or do you think its something else?

Fireblossom wrote:
BTW, many socially well doing people have actually studied about social interaction, they just don't make much noise about it.


But if they "don't make much noise about it", how did you find out that they studied it?

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
Interestingly, with regards to this topic, I hear different people say different thing. On the one hand, both my mom and my ex from 10 years ago are both saying it should take effort, even for NT-s. But on the other hand there are others (both aspies and NT-s) who are saying that for NT-s it comes without effort.


Reading social cues comes without effort to most NTs in comparison to those on the spectrum, but that's a different thing than upholding friendships, which takes effort. Or well, in some cases only one side puts in effort, but those are usually unhealthy friendships.


As far as "reading social cues" without effort yet "social skills" requiring effort, I totally get your point. Apparently I am "reading social cues" just fine, since I keep noticing the cues that people don't like me. But as far as being able to do something about it, thats the hard part.

Speaking of social cues, maybe *thats* the reason why I don't want to approach people: I pick up their non-verbal cues that its not welcome. I mean, as far as that girl at a math class few years ago who kept looking at me, I still regret the fact that I didn't start a conversation with her. Yet I don't have that same regret when it comes to everyone else. Why is that? Probably because she gave me non-verbal cue that its welcome, while everyone else are giving me non-verbal cue that it isn't.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
And with my mom I had similar conversation, where she agrees with my ex. My mom gave me an example that once she saw, at a party, a husband telling his wife "lets go home, so we can take a breather from straining ourselves" and she said that everyone "strain themselves" when they are in a social situations, not just that couple.


Yes, everyone does strain themselves in social situations (unless there are some rare exceptions), but how much and how fast one gets strained in a social situation varies a lot. On average, us on the spectrum seem to get strained faster than NTs. Likewise, introverts tire out faster than extroverts.


Interestingly enough, as an introvert, I do feel tired after I am around people for too long, and I need some alone time to re-charge. Yet I don't strain myself in the way my mom talked about: she was trying to tell me that I should put effort into how I interact, and thats precisely the thing I don't do. Yes I put a lot of effort over-analyzing my past mistakes (whether they be 5 minutes ago or 5 months ago or 5 years ago) but I don't actually put any effort into putting my best foot forward (which is exactly what my mom was trying to get at).

So how come I feel the need to recharge despite the fact that I don't strain in that way? Could it be that I do strain just not notice it? Or is it different kinds of straining?

I guess if I try to "ask myself" that question, the answer I can produce is as follows. Lets say I am studying at a restaurant, and lets say I need a change of scenary. So I go to a different restaurant. But if I am in a group of people, I can't do it. I feel stuck in the same place. Or lets say I feel like buying a candy bar. If I am by myself I will go ahead and do it. In a group of people I won't have guts to.

So I guess this does amount to altering my behavior when I am around people, after all. So maybe the issue is just the fact that I am not altering the right aspects of it?

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
I guess one way in which they may know, is that I am at university rather than at a gang, and these types of people don't get violent.

Actually I remember making that point few years ago at a different message board. And someone told me that all men are prone to violence. I then asked what about my professors, would "they" harass women? And that poster said yes, its possible.

I guess to me its just hard to believe.


There are lots of highly intelligent, highly educated dangerous criminals.


I am not talking about intelligence as such. I am talking about what I chose to do with my intelligence. Surely criminals need intelligence to design all their elaborate schemes on how to rob people. But are there any of them that are actually in academia? Thats the question.

Fireblossom wrote:
But if you really want to hang out with younger women, I'd recommend finding a hobby that has them and that also interests you.


Bible study would be the obvious one. And thats where I am already going without much success. I am thinking of changing Bible study group for a fresh start.

Fireblossom wrote:
And if you find such a group, make sure to hang out with the guys there too, 'cause if it becomes clear you only pay attention to women, not to mention much younger ones, you'll look like a creep and that's what you want to avoid. Basically, treat everyone else there as well as you treat the young women.


Speaking of that, do you think people have picked up on the fact that the people I obsess of who don't talk to me are usually women, and *thats* ultimately the reason why women don't talk to me?

I guess one way to support this hypothesis is that, back when I was at a different school few years ago (I am not there any more) I was going to Baptist Student Union and I was complaining how I had no friends. The one "friend" that they kept offering me was one of the group leaders and he was a male. I kept ignoring it as irrelevant. And then a couple of females came forward. Did I igonre them? In terms of front, yes: like one of them offered that I sit next to her in church and I purposely didn't. But given how much thought I put into that very thing, I sure dind't ignore them as far as my thought processes are concerned. On the contrary I kept patting myself in the back for "not" sitting next to her. Did I pat myself on a back for "not" paying attention to that male that I mentioned? Nope. So clearly in my head I thought about women more than men. The question is: were other people able to guess it?

I guess there was one specific woman who most likely did guess this. Because I remember how she gave me a ride to a certain event, and then a bunch of guys suggested they be the ones to give me the ride back. And she repeatedly asked me am I sure. And the way in which she asked me was quite clear that her concern was that I might lose a temper over the fact that it wasn't her who is giving me a ride. And indeed she was right. Because you see, I pretended as if I chose to take the guys offer over hers, yet in my head I was upset that they gave me that offer on the first place, and I kept ruminating over this for the next several days. So apparently she was able to guess that was the case.

And then of course that other girl that offered me to sit next to her in church. I mean here is how she offered it. So I was standing in the room all by myself. She was with a group of girls in the other side of the room. I have no idea what they talked about because they talked way too quietly. Then she walks up to me and says she doesn't have much time, she only came for one thing namely to suggest I sit next to her when I go to church since she goes to the same church I do (other people there were going to other churches). Now, why would she do that, unless she somehow suspects that I want to sit specifically with a female?

And also, at the school where I am currently am -- but few years ago -- I was talking to a guy how I missed an opportunity to "be friends" with a certain girl that liked me, and he asked me why am I keep talking about that girl instead of "being friends" with him. I took it as an insinuation of a qustion "why are you only looking for females instead of males"

But then again its also possible that others weren't able to guess this as much as I think they could. For example, maybe the question that guy was trying to ask was not "why are you focuting on females rather than males" but rather "why are you focusing on people that are gone instead of focusing on the ones right in front of you". But then again, why did he mention that she found a boyfriend? So clearly he suspected that I was wishing I could date her. And within this particular context it would very much sound like "why are you focusing on dating women rather than being friends with men". Although again its also possible that he was just thinking of it as an example of my "focusing on what is lost instead of what is in front of me" (whether it be dating-related or not). I guess I can't really ask him because its been few years and he most likely forgot that conversation.

As far as the previous school goes, yes those couple of women brought themselves forward, but so did the male group leader. So maybe they were tryign to do the same thing he did without really thinking of their gender? And that woman who thought I would get upset if guys take me could have been thinking not so much about gender but rather about the fact that I seemed volatile while those guys acted a bit too eager, so she didn't know if they would say/do something that would trigger me in some way.

So what is your guess? Do you think they were able to guess that I was focusing on women or not?

The way this is relevant is that remember how you said that if they see I am focused on women they would regard me as a creep? So IF they indeed were able to see it, then maybe that would explain why most women (except for a couple of "babysitters") were avoiding me?

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
So are you saying that folded arms doesn't just mean I don't want to talk but rather it also means I am violent?


Certain kind of body language can give off such an impression, yes. I remember scaring little kids at work practice when I was a teenager 'cause I kept squinting my eyes due to the sunshine and the kids thought I was angry because of the way it made me look.


Oh yeah, I squint a lot. In my case its due to the fact that I am nearsighted (somewhere around -2.5) but I don't wear glasses because I hope to improve my vision that way. So I oftentimes end up squinting. I don't think its just nearsigntedness part of it is just a habbit. For example, right now as I am typing, my right eye is closed. But you see, as someone near sighted, I am supposed to see well nearby. So I am not sure why I close my right eye. Although yes I do see the screen a bit blury. I guess its because I have a bit of astigmatism in addition to nearsightedness, and yes my eyes are slightly different from each other (although far away my right eye is slightly better, at least used to be).

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
Well, at least the men that attack women are less human.


On this we agree on, but I think the same of men who attack other men.


I agree on this too, I was just focused on women because thats where they aren't trusting me. So I guess in order to feel regarded as human I want it to be clear that I won't attack either men or women. Yet its not clear to others -- particularly in the domain of not attacking women. And thats why I feel like they don't view me as human.

Fireblossom wrote:
Self defense is, of course, allowed.


Thats a moot point since I don't know how to do self defence.

Fireblossom wrote:

That said, I'm not sure about men not needing emotional support as much as women. I think that it's just a result of the culture not allowing men to show feelings that can be considered weakness the way women are allowed to.


I can sort of relate to it: I have internalized the concept that showing emotions is weak. But, to me, its the men whom I want to hide "weakness" from. In case of women I wouldn't feel judged because they, too, are "weak" by male standards. So that is the other reason I prefer female friends.

Of course with women I feel judged for an entirely different thing: namely appearing like a creep. But I guess my reaction to this is different because lack of male attention doesn't hurt as much as lack of female attention. So while in case of males I can deal with it through avoidance, that just won't cut it in case of females. At least not when I watch women interact with others and see myself excluded.

Fireblossom wrote:

Quote:
Well, as far as romance is concerned, I would find that topic interesting too. I mean see how much I am talking about not having a girlfriend. So romance is what I am missing. If most men aren't interested in romance, then why are they looking for a girlfriend? Apparently they just want sex. So then its no wonder why women perceive men as creeps. I don't even see why sex should be such a big deal anyway: there are plenty of other sensory pleasant things, such as nice food or what not. To me the whole entire point in a relationship is emotional connection. And thats why I would be interested in talking about romance.


Let's remember that it was just an example. And there's a difference between wanting to be romantic and wanting to talk about romance. One might want to buy flowers for their girl (or their guy) and cuddle on the couch while eating chocolate, but at the same time they could be completely uninterested in talking about romance fiction or the topic of what does one consider romantic.


Is it also that whole vulnerability thing? As in, a man can be vulnerable around his girlfriend by romancing her but he doesn't want to be vulnerable with others by talking about it?

In my case, as far as buying flowers and holding doors, I don't do any of that, don't have a habbit. As far as cuddling and holding hands, I enjoy it (as long as we don't have sex). In fact thats one of the things I miss now that I think about it. And also the whole romantic dinner, movie, etc. all those things I miss too. Although it was always my girlfriends that were arranging those things rather than me, so that is where one might suspect I am not romantic. But I still appreciated those things quite a bit. So even though I was all take rather than give, I still appreciated it, and I would have talked about it to my female friends if I had them.

One area where I "do" contribute to the romance is with words of affection. One of my ex-s actually told me that I am very romantic. And she was referring to words that I said over skype. So I guess its not that I am not romantic but rather I have different love language. So in terms of the type of thing I contribute to romance, it is "words of affection", and in terms of the thing I like to receive from the other person, it is "quality time".

But going back to what you said that enjoying romance is different from talking about it. Well, if it is a vulnerability thing, then I anticipate that I would be open to talking about it to women (for reason cited earlier). But of course it would only be the case if our friendship develops to that level.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
But as far as other things, such as makeup and sewing, I agree with you that I won't be interested in those topics. But I doubt thats what female conversation is focused on. If it was, then I wouldn't feel so bad I am not part of it. But to me it sounded like they were talking about things other than that.


Again, just an example. Some women talk about those things a lot. My mom and I talk about sewing a lot at times, usually when we have some project that needs that. It's also a common topic in my hobby circles, and men joining in is not as rare as it usually would be outside the hobby.

Quote:
As far as flower arranging, I have a totally different perspective on flowers. I feel bad for flowers being torn from the ground and I prefer flowers in a soil. So I guess I wouldn't be on the same page with them due to this. I do remember liking flowers back when I was little kid so I guess I can talk about the topic "what flowers do you like" (irrespective of what is being done to those flowers). But, again, is it REALLY something women spend a lot of time talking about? To me it seems like they are talking about a lot more general topics than this.


Again, an example. Women interested in flowers will talk about flowers when finding like minded people. Same goes for men interested in flowers, but they seem to be rarer. My former neighbour, a woman, really loves talking about her garden and all the flowers there. Not that I blame her; her garden is really a sight to see.

Quote:
I haven't thought of it this way. I thought that what they are giving to each other is natural caring about a fellow human being, as opposed to a "reward" for something they "earned".


I know they are just examples. And I was looking at them that way too.

Fireblossom wrote:
That's one way to look at it, I suppose, but let's remember that everyone has limited time and limited mental resources. If someone lent an ear to everyone who wanted to went, it'd take up too much of their time and would be emotionally exhausting, so they ought to prioritize. How do they do that? By putting friends first.


Well, since everyone has friends except for me, I end up feeling "last" hence my frustration. I guess if I had "some" friends, I wouldn't mind as much not having other ones. But having "some" friends is the key here.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
But I want friendship and everything that goes with it.


What do you think this "everything" is? There are a lots of different types of friendships, and most probably won't tick all the boxes.


I guess the parts I do NOT want are board games, loud parties, etc. And the parts I *do* want are emotional support, quiet presence, where I feel "protected" so to speak, as in "even if most people don't like me, I am okay as long as I am hanging around right here since I feel welcome". This sort of thing.

Fireblossom wrote:
First step is finding someone you want to be friends with, second step is going and talking to that person.


I actually think it might be the opposite time sequence. How do I know whom in the room full of people do I want to be friends with, if I don't know anything about any of them? So ideally conversation should "just happen" with "everyone" in the room, and one would find out "in the process" whom they "click" with. But since for me that doesn't happen (I would be lucky if even one person in the room talks to me) I am at the predicament that I am at.



Ettina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,971

31 Oct 2021, 7:33 am

QFT wrote:
Slightly older waitress: I tried to talk to you several times but you were busy (Again, what exactly is she referring to by "trying to talk several times"? Yes I remember her asking me about calculus, but that was ONCE, not SEVERAL times.


Do you have auditory processing issues? I often fail to hear when people are talking to me when there's background noise. Is it possible she said something that you missed?



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

31 Oct 2021, 9:10 am

Ettina wrote:
QFT wrote:
Slightly older waitress: I tried to talk to you several times but you were busy (Again, what exactly is she referring to by "trying to talk several times"? Yes I remember her asking me about calculus, but that was ONCE, not SEVERAL times.


Do you have auditory processing issues? I often fail to hear when people are talking to me when there's background noise. Is it possible she said something that you missed?


Thats a really good question, that I haven't really thought about. Whenever I hear about autistic sensory issues I just assume I don't have them because I don't find various situations "sensory unpleasant" the way they do. But you made a really good point. Maybe, even though I don't find it unpleasant, I still have trouble processing the stimuli regardless. I haven't really thought of that possibility. But now that you brought it up, I can't really "prove" or "disprove" it.

For one thing, I can't remember for sure whether there even was a music or noise. As far as me mentioning that I couldn't hear the woman from across the door it felt like it was more about the fact that her voice was quiet and she was too far away. But then again if I ask myself how often it is that they don't play "any" music at the caffees, I would say not that often, so who knows maybe there was music.

But in any case in order to answer your question, I have to compare myself to NT-s. I always assumed that NT-s were similar to me in those regards. For example, yes, if the music is too loud I won't hear the other person (although I don't think it was that loud in that caffee). But similarly if the music is too loud then others won't hear me either. I am pretty sure there were some occasions when others asked me to repeat things because of the loud noise or what not. So I guess the question is whether or not I have even more trouble than they do. I really have no evidence of it either way since I weren't really paying attention to that aspect of it.

The only thing I do know is that I am nearsighted and I don't wear glasses (because I remember my mom used to think that not wearing glasses prevents her vision from deteriorating and she doesn't wear glasses either despite being nearsighted). So, due to this, its possible that they would give me visual clues that I would miss.

The other thing I know is that there were situations in the past where I was told I was not responsive despite the fact that I knew for a fact that neither visual nor audible difficulties were present. For example, I remember 15 years ago I met a girl on a dating site, she told me that her brother had Asperger too, and one issue he had is that when her father-in-law would speak to him, he wouldn't respond. I told her that this is the one symptom of Asperger I don't have. Then during our first date I wasn't as good at having a conversation going. Which I dind't even realize. I thought the date went well until she told me over the chat that it didn't. I then said to her "why can't we fix it by you asking me about it if it seems like I am too quiet or what not". She said "how would this help if you don't reply". And my first reaction was "I am not your brother, it is him who doesn't respond, not me". But then down the road I noticed that there were few other people that said hte same thing she did. So then I began to wonder: could it be that I think I hear everything and then I don't?

But you see, in case of that girl 15 years ago, I don't see how it could have possibly be either audible or visual. Because we were sitting at the same table. So since my problem is only seeing things far away, I don't see how my nearsightedness could have been the issue. As far as music, once again, I don't remember if it was loud or not. But I would assume it wasn't stopping me from hearing her, because if it did, then I would have remembered. For example, there was a girl whom I met on a dating site 2 months ago and things didn't work out because I couldn't hear her over skype (she blamed it on me I didn't find a location with better reception). Now, I remember very well struggling to hear her. So if I were to similarly struggle to hear the girl 15 years ago, I would have remembered it too, or so you would think.

The only thing I can really think of is maybe I have trouble getting a social cues. For example, at some point that girl 15 years ago put her head on a table. And I took it as an opportunity to talk to her about waitresses asking me to stop doing it since it happened to be one of the things I was curious about at that time (before she ever did that herself). But now that I think back to it, maybe her doing it was a clue "hey I am bored, would you please bring up something exciting". But I didn't pick up on that clue and instead decided she invited me to talk about my obsession with waitresses. So if she gave me other similar clues that I didn't pick up on, maybe thats what she was referring to as my not being responsive.

Going back to the waitress situation, the other thing that might have happened is that sometimes I have difficulty realizing that I am the person being spoken to (although of course that won't apply to the girl 15 years ago since it was just the two of us; but it might well apply to some of the waitresses). In fact, I remember two days ago -- at a different restaurant -- I walked in and the waitress gave me a really big smile and asked me excitedly how I was doing. I didn't know she was talking to me. I thought she talked to that other girl that was standing in front of me. First of all, I assumed that girl was also a customer so if she was in front of me, she would serve her first (but now I am not that sure she was a customer, maybe she was another waitress, I have no idea). Secondly, the way she approached me seemed way too friendly for a complete stranger, so that again suggests it is probably somebody else (and the only obvious candidate for "somebody else" would be that other girl). And thirdly I was rather rude towards her the day before when I asked her whether she was drinking from a cup she gave me and/or someone else (her answer was that she was drinking from her own cup and she would never do what I suggested). Even though I apologized for that question, she still seemed tense even after my apology, so it seemed unlikely she would get so friendly towards me the next time. So out of those cues I assumed she wasn't talking to me but she was.

I guess this incident "could" be attributed to nearsightedness thing if I think about it. Because whether she was talking to me or to the other girl can be determined by what angle she was looking at, but the difference in the angle would have been around 10 degrees rather than 40 degrees. So maybe not having glasses made it harder to see. I guess I never thought of glasses in that way. I was more thinking of glasses as being able to read things without squinting. But who knows maybe thats related too. I mean, I was nearsighted ever since I was 18 and I never wore glasses. So maybe I just got used to various things that go with it to the point that I don't even realize they are realted. But thats just my theorizing I don't know this for a fact.

The other thing that people keep saying which I feel doesn't apply to me is eye contact. It says a lot that autistics don't make eye contact. I always assumed this doesn't apply to me since I do. However, when I ask people why is it people don't talk to me, I am sometimes told that its because I don't look them in the eyes. Whenever I hear it, I tend to assume that maybe the other person just "assumes" thats the case because I said I have Asperger and they judge me for my label. However, the list of people that says this includes my mom. And, as much as my mom misunderstands me or mis-assumes things, one would think she would know whether I look in the eyes or not by just observing me. So I guess *if* those people who say I don't look into eyes are right, then that might be the other reason why I miss various cues.

I remember that one of the people that said I don't look into the eyes (whom I didn't believe) was one of the members of Libertarian party whose meetings I attended back in the previous school. In any case, there was one time when they all got drunk (well, except for me: I don't drink). So as he was drunk he acted a bit more aggressive so he told me "come on, look at me" and I looked and he said "no thats not good enough, look straight into my eyes", etc. And as I tried doing it I saw that it was difficult. And it was surprising. Because you see, I read many years earlier how some autistics find it painful to look into the eyes and I was like "yes I look at people that I talk and I don't find it painful so that doesn't apply to me". But then I read something else: namely that some autistics cope with it by looking near the person's eyes rather than at them. And then, in conjunction with my experience with that guy, I began to wonder if I do the same thing, except that they do it conscciously and I do it subconsciously so I am not aware of it.

Now, usually I am not paying that much attention to what I do with looking at the eyes. But in some occasions when it crosses my mind to pay attention to it, I noticed different things. Sometimes (for example, with my mom) I notice that yes I can look straight into the eyes without any discomfort yet in other situations I notice that yes I do have discomfort if I try to do that. So it can go both ways I guess.

One data point is that an older female student (she is probably like 60) met me at the store. When she said hi to me, I didn't know who she was until she reminded me. Then at some point during the conversation I noticed that she has "opposite" to crossed eyes (her eyes look away from the nose rather than towards it, as in her left eye looks left and her right eye looks right). So I asked her about it and she told me she had this from childhood, it is just that during covid when she wears a mask it is harder to miss since "you wouldn't look at my mouth due to the mask so the eyes is the only thing left to look at". So since she came up with that explanation so easily, then maybe I am not that different from NT-s in terms of where I look during the conversation? She knows I have Asperger though (she was one of the people I was complaining about it) but she didn't mention it in this context.

The other thing that just occurred to me is maybe its not even about whether I look at the eyes or at the mouth. Maybe it "is" the exact way some people make it sound that I don't look at people "at all". As a matter of fact now that I think of it, I don't even have to go to the restaurant to answer the question whether I look at the waitresses when they speak to me. The answer is that I don't. To the point that I look 90 degrees away from them. If I sit at the table and they are standing then I don't bother to lift my head so I am not looking at them strictly due to this. When I first walk at the restaurant and I am standing then I guess I would look at them for a few seconds I suppose. But not for too long, since we are not in the middle of conversation.

By the way, my university counselor whom I saw on and off occasionally gave me the opposite feedback. He told me that I look at him too intensely when I talk and I need to look away more. The only way I can put what he says together with what others are saying is that if I am excited about whatever I am saying I would give an intense look, if I am not so excited I would look away. Maybe NT-s would resist both tendencies in order to look closer to average while in my case I don't resist those things so my looks either way are too exaggerated.

With the tone of voice it might be a similar concept. 99% of the time my voice is too loud, which is the other thing that pushes people away. But then there is that 1% of the time when it is too quiet: namely when my mom tries to get me to say hello and I just don't feel like it. Now at the times when it is too loud I would assume that it is just the issue with my vocal cords. Because I physically can not help make it quieter. Once counselor asked me to speak both quieter and more slowly as an exercize and it took so much physical effort that I literally got tired after two sentences, while normally when I speak loud and fast I can ramble for hours. However, despite my "vocal cord issue" somehow my voice gets really quiet when I my mom tries to get me to say hello. So maybe its not just vocal cords but also some psychology too?

And if so maybe my going back and forth between too much eye contact and too little is similar to my speaking quietly when I normally speak loudly?

Oh yeah, speaking of not recognizing people, that 60 year old woman was NOT the only person I didn't recognize. I have trouble remembering names and faces. So there are lots of people whom I recognize when they are at their respective locations but not anywhere else. For example, on campus there are two shops. So once a cashier who was normally on one shop was at the other shop, and I didn't recognize her. And then there were times when I passed by those cashiers on the street and didn't recognize them either. I remember one guy, who is at my department, invited me hiking with a group of people. Then a month after that hike, he said hi to me on my way to class and I asked him who he was. He got annoyed that I didn't recognize him after hiking with him for the whole day let alone the fact that he is in my department and talked to me a lot. So after he called me out on it, I recognized him ever since. So I guess I "can" remember faces with some effort, since I remembered his face after that 30 second interaction when he called me out on this, yet I didn't remember it after the whole day of hike.

Then a year later he invited me to another hike, and I didn't recognize people in his car. He again got upset with me. He told me people in his car were my classmates with whom I took a certain two-semester class, so he couldn't get how is it I don't recognize them "and" he got annoyed at that too. However, speaking of that class, there is one guy whom I "do" recognize, without any outside prompting. So during those lectures the professor would ask whether someone in the class could "help him out" (in order to get us to participate) and it was always either me or that guy who would respond. So that is how I remembered him. And he remembered me too. Whenever he would pass by my office he would ask me how I am doing. The only problem is that I am not in my office that often (i am used to studying at the caffees). So maybe I should get those office keys and start coming there.

Similarly, I would always recognize a certain muslim woman who kept asking me to help her with her homework. By the way, she is married, and even outside that fact I have no inclination to want to be friends with her (especially since she would always ask for help which gets old). But still I recognize her.

I also recognize all of my professors as well.

And of course I would recognize my parents, grandparents, etc (although my mom is the only one of them who is alive as of now)

And I would recognize most of my mom's close friends (although not all).

So I am not sure whether it is actual prosopagnosia or just lack of habbit of paying attention.

But in any case, one obvious way in which people can feel ingored is this. If they are one of the people whom I don't recognize outside of their respective locations, I might walk pass them on the street and not say hi, and if they say hi or wave at me, I would just assume they were talking to someone else, which is a logical assumption to make if I assume they are complete strangers. And then they would think I ignored them.

I don't think it happened to the waitress I talked about in OP. Because she never indicated that she knew me before I came there, and when she said she tried to talk to me I assumed it was in reference to when I "was" there.

But I guess logically I "could" come up with the following scenario. *IF* she knew me from elsewhere (which is a big IF because I tend to say she didn't) *THEN* she might have been referring to my behavior outside of the cafe yet I assumed she was referring to my behavior inside since I wasn't on the same page with regards to her knowing me outside.

But again, most likely that wasn't the case. I would assume that if it was, I would have gathered it at least eventually.

I think others might have an idea I have trouble recognizing people, because I noticed that one of the students from the class I am teaching, when she submits homework by email she keeps telling me "my name is such and such, I am in your class" even though in her case I very much DO recognize her name. I similarly recognize the names of the majority of people I am teaching (but recognize is different from being able to name them). Yet I don't know how most of them look like. In fact, when I am in front of my classroom, I can recognize two people: her, and one guy. I remember though when I was grading in the hallway there was some girl that looked similar to her so I asked her if it was -- that way I could return to her some of the homework. But no, it wasn't her.

Speaking of that class, during one of the lectures last week, the whole class saw a spider but I didn't. I kept trying to get them to tell me where it is at, they kept pointing it to me and I kept not seeing it. Until they said "she is taking care of it" and one of the students went out of the classroom, apparently to throw the spider away. Well except that I didn't see any spider in her hands. The spider was supposed to be by the blackboard right where I was teaching. The whole class was laughing and I was like totally clueless.



Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,567

31 Oct 2021, 11:49 am

QFT wrote:
I see your point. I guess the three main issues is

(i) Since I know that the reasons I have to do it have to do with being perceived negatively, it kinda hurts my pride to do it

(ii) I don't know how to do it anyway. Case in point: few years ago there was a girl in a math class who kept looking at me. It took me a month to finally bring myself to talk to her after class and even after that I couldn't get myself to talk to her again. Now, in this case my pride was not hurt because she clearly liked me based on the signals she gave off. So no it wasn't pride at all. Rather it was the simple fact that I don't know how to bring myself to do it. Now seeing how she made it so much easier, just htink of how much harder it is with everyone else.

(iii) What you said about them changing their minds after they talk to me, that is also unlikely. On the contrary, if I look back at those rare times when I was lucky enough for people to approach me first, it often happened that after we talk for a few minutes they would excuse themselves. And, again, that would happen when THEY started the conversation first. Which means that the way in which I talked to them somehow changed their mind from liking me to not liking me. But now when it comes to people other than them, who already don't like me, that would be even worse. How could I ever get them from not liking me to liking me if with everyone else it tents to go in the opposite direction?


Knowing when to swallow one's own pride for the sake of making friends, and even more importantly, for the sake of keeping friends one has made, is a social skill.

Huh, that's interesting... stage fright? Kinda sounds like it.

Yeah, sometimes that happens. But you know, what makes you so sure that the people who don't talk to you don't like you? Do they give you bad looks or hand gestures or something? If the only reason you think they don't like you is that they don't come to talk to you, then I think you've misunderstood. If people simply ignore you like that, that usually means they're neutral about you. They have no specific reason why not to come and talk to you, but they have no reason to do so, either. And you wishing people would talk to you doesn't count as a reason since it's not like those people know it.

Quote:
Yes I also noticed that pattern. I haven't thought of the things you just mentioned though. Instead I was thinking that that they decide that if someone is alone then this person might have some personality flaw that pushed everyone else away, so they don't want to deal with that flaw. What you said, though, sounds a lot less negative than that. So it would be interesting to find out whether its my theory or yours that takes place.


I've heard a theory like that before, too. I think that it depends on the person and the situation; sometimes it's my theory, sometimes yours, sometimes something else.

Quote:
If I go along with your theory, then it is very much true that if they approach me then they would be the center of my attention. But I kept thinking the opposite: since I clearly care about said interaction a lot more than others do, why not give me the exact thing I care about? But I guess if they have selfish perspective then it might make more sense. For example I don't like living with my mother because I don't want to be the center of her attention. Too much pressure.


Why do you think you care about it more than others and why do you think it should be clear? You don't know what others think, and they certainly don't know what you think. Also, even if they did know, why should they give you the thing you want, and not use their time to give someone else something that other person wants? Why should you be more important?
Also, your example about your mom might explain the reason why some people don't like you: you giving them too much attention puts too much pressure on them. Has anyone ever told you that you're too pushy? Or too demanding when it comes to social interaction? Of course, this can only apply to people who you've actually talked to, so it can't be a reason for strangers to avoid you, but others who you've been in contact with more.

Quote:
The other thing you mentioned is that if they happened not to like someone then its harder to leave that person if they are by themselves. But you see, if I ask *why* is it harder, the answer is that you don't want to leave them feeling lonely. But then, by the same token, wouldn't it also be harder not to start talking to them on the first place? Since in this case they would be lonely too? In other words, why would they be "more lonely" if you talk to them and then leave, rather than if you never talk to them at all?


I don't think people think about the other person being lonely in these situations. Rather than that, the reason why they find leaving harder is because they don't want to come off as rude. Leaving a group is easier because one can just put a word in at some point of the conversation that they're leaving 'cause the others are likely to just quickly say bye and continue where they left off. Or if it's a really big group, one can just tell one person they're leaving or say it without telling anyone specific 'cause someone will hear it anyway and inform the others if needed.

Quote:
I guess two answers I can come up with are as following:

a) Getting hopes up and then finding out that they were false hopes is in some way even more painful than never getting those hopes up to begin with


This could only be the case if those strangers who ignore you went through the trouble of thinking of some random stranger's (which in this case is you) feelings on the matter. I'm pretty sure most people don't do that.

Quote:
b) If people ignore me then "in their universe" I don't exist, and my loneliness doesn't exist either. But if they start talking to me then "in their universe" I begin to exist and then they are faced with the problem of having to keep providing me company


This could be a reason, but only if they somehow knew that you were lonely. People can tell when a stranger is physically alone, but they tend not to be able to tell when a stranger is lonely because of it.

Quote:
c) They figure that since everyone else apparently left me, maybe they would be more likely to end up leaving too (due to whatever it is that pushed outhers way)


This could be valid, but of course, strangers can never know for sure if you spend all your free time alone or if you just happen to be alone today. Of course, if you keep going to the same place that always have the same people, some are likely to notice that you always come alone, but they might not really think much of it. They have no reason to ignore you, but no reason to talk to you, either, so they just do what they came to do.

But if they "don't make much noise about it", how did you find out that they studied it?

Not much noise is different from no noise at all. They talk about it sometimes, and I end up finding of some of those times. I bet that there are lots of socially successful people who study about socializing but who I haven't caught at it or heard them admit it.

Quote:
As far as "reading social cues" without effort yet "social skills" requiring effort, I totally get your point. Apparently I am "reading social cues" just fine, since I keep noticing the cues that people don't like me. But as far as being able to do something about it, thats the hard part.


Reading social cues is a social skill. Being able to socialize properly or at least somewhat successfully requires a set of different skills. You have the skill of reading social cues, or at least the ones that tell that someone doesn't like you, but not the skill to do something about it, apparently.

Though honestly, I'm not entirely convinced about you having the skill to recognize when someone doesn't like you. If you talk to someone and they don't answer then yes, unless they have a hearing problem, they clearly don't want to talk to you. But other people ignoring you when you aren't doing anything to get their attention (like talking) isn't the same as them not liking you.

Quote:
Probably because she gave me non-verbal cue that its welcome, while everyone else are giving me non-verbal cue that it isn't.


What are these cues? Glaring? Moving away when you move closer? I used to get both at the school's lunch hall and eventually got the clue, though it took me a while. Not that I was able to do anything about it since the rules said we had to fill the tables in the order we got there (this was in elementary school.)

Quote:
Interestingly enough, as an introvert, I do feel tired after I am around people for too long, and I need some alone time to re-charge. Yet I don't strain myself in the way my mom talked about: she was trying to tell me that I should put effort into how I interact, and thats precisely the thing I don't do. Yes I put a lot of effort over-analyzing my past mistakes (whether they be 5 minutes ago or 5 months ago or 5 years ago) but I don't actually put any effort into putting my best foot forward (which is exactly what my mom was trying to get at).


Um, why? Why don't you put effort in to socializing? I would understand if you didn't care what people think about you, but since that's obviously not the case, why aren't you putting in the effort to make them like you, or at least try to make sure they won't dislike you, when you have the chance?

Quote:
So how come I feel the need to recharge despite the fact that I don't strain in that way? Could it be that I do strain just not notice it? Or is it different kinds of straining?


Well, it is possible that the strain you feel is a physical one, like you need a break from all the noise and stuff, but I think it's likelier that you're doing something differently when you're with people than when you're alone that comes so naturally that you don't notice the difference, only the following exhaustion. Something like listening to what others say? After all, that's not something you do when you're alone 'cause there's no one around to listen to.

Quote:
I guess if I try to "ask myself" that question, the answer I can produce is as follows. Lets say I am studying at a restaurant, and lets say I need a change of scenary. So I go to a different restaurant. But if I am in a group of people, I can't do it. I feel stuck in the same place. Or lets say I feel like buying a candy bar. If I am by myself I will go ahead and do it. In a group of people I won't have guts to.

So I guess this does amount to altering my behavior when I am around people, after all. So maybe the issue is just the fact that I am not altering the right aspects of it?


Hm, I'm not sure if I'm following. So, when you're alone, you do what you feel like doing, yet when you're with others, for one reason or the other you don't have the guts for it, even if it's something like going to buy a snack and then come back? Or suggesting that you (as in the whole group) change locations? If I understood correctly then yes, I think you're altering the wrong aspects of your behavior. I can go in to more detail about this if I did understand correctly, but in case I didn't, I won't say more on this one until I know for sure in order to avoid any misunderstandings.

Quote:
But are there any of them that are actually in academia? Thats the question.


Definitely, but once they get caught, they get kicked out from there... or at least, they should be. Some with enough connections and money probably cover it all up though.

Quote:
Speaking of that, do you think people have picked up on the fact that the people I obsess of who don't talk to me are usually women, and *thats* ultimately the reason why women don't talk to me?


Possible. Or they might not have paid attention to the part that they're women, but just that you obsess over some people and they don't want to risk ending up as one of those people.

Quote:
I guess there was one specific woman who most likely did guess this. Because I remember how she gave me a ride to a certain event, and then a bunch of guys suggested they be the ones to give me the ride back. And she repeatedly asked me am I sure. And the way in which she asked me was quite clear that her concern was that I might lose a temper over the fact that it wasn't her who is giving me a ride. And indeed she was right. Because you see, I pretended as if I chose to take the guys offer over hers, yet in my head I was upset that they gave me that offer on the first place, and I kept ruminating over this for the next several days. So apparently she was able to guess that was the case.


So she repeatedly offered you a ride, you wanted to go with her, yet you went with the guys? Why?
But yes, she probably guessed. Or maybe she got upset that you rather went with the guys than her? (You said you would've rather gone with her, but since you went with the guys instead, it's possible that she thought you preferred their company over hers.)

Quote:
And then of course that other girl that offered me to sit next to her in church. I mean here is how she offered it. So I was standing in the room all by myself. She was with a group of girls in the other side of the room. I have no idea what they talked about because they talked way too quietly. Then she walks up to me and says she doesn't have much time, she only came for one thing namely to suggest I sit next to her when I go to church since she goes to the same church I do (other people there were going to other churches). Now, why would she do that, unless she somehow suspects that I want to sit specifically with a female?


I think she did what she did because she thought it'd be the polite thing to do because you two sort of knew each other.

Quote:
And also, at the school where I am currently am -- but few years ago -- I was talking to a guy how I missed an opportunity to "be friends" with a certain girl that liked me, and he asked me why am I keep talking about that girl instead of "being friends" with him. I took it as an insinuation of a qustion "why are you only looking for females instead of males"

But then again its also possible that others weren't able to guess this as much as I think they could. For example, maybe the question that guy was trying to ask was not "why are you focuting on females rather than males" but rather "why are you focusing on people that are gone instead of focusing on the ones right in front of you". But then again, why did he mention that she found a boyfriend? So clearly he suspected that I was wishing I could date her. And within this particular context it would very much sound like "why are you focusing on dating women rather than being friends with men". Although again its also possible that he was just thinking of it as an example of my "focusing on what is lost instead of what is in front of me" (whether it be dating-related or not). I guess I can't really ask him because its been few years and he most likely forgot that conversation.


Yeah, I think that he didn't like it that you were complaining about something that nothing could be done about anymore instead of using the same time to do something with him or talk about something that you both cared about with him. Or maybe he was just tired of you complaining to him about something that had nothing to do with him.

Quote:
So what is your guess? Do you think they were able to guess that I was focusing on women or not?

The way this is relevant is that remember how you said that if they see I am focused on women they would regard me as a creep? So IF they indeed were able to see it, then maybe that would explain why most women (except for a couple of "babysitters") were avoiding me?


I don't think that in these cases the root of the problems was you focusing on women.

I said if you focus only on women, especially if they're much younger. But yes, if women can tell you're obsessing over someone and find it creepy, they're likely to avoid you. But for people to notice something like that, you'd have to be pretty obvious, which I don't think came across in those stories, aside from maybe the talk you had with that guy.

Quote:
Is it also that whole vulnerability thing? As in, a man can be vulnerable around his girlfriend by romancing her but he doesn't want to be vulnerable with others by talking about it?


That could be the reason with some. There's also a saying "men speak with actions, not with words" which obviously doesn't apply to every man, like you apparently, but it doesn't come out of nowhere, either. And there's the thing that while some are interested in doing romantic stuff, talking about it just isn't interesting to them.

Quote:
In my case, as far as buying flowers and holding doors, I don't do any of that, don't have a habbit. As far as cuddling and holding hands, I enjoy it (as long as we don't have sex). In fact thats one of the things I miss now that I think about it. And also the whole romantic dinner, movie, etc. all those things I miss too. Although it was always my girlfriends that were arranging those things rather than me, so that is where one might suspect I am not romantic. But I still appreciated those things quite a bit. So even though I was all take rather than give, I still appreciated it, and I would have talked about it to my female friends if I had them.


To each their own, I suppose, but have you considered the possibility that your exes might not have liked it that they did things for you that took time and money, yet you never returned the gestures? I'm not saying those things have to be done, but if one arranges stuff time and time again and the other never does, well, it would usually get on a person's nerves at some point. Personally, if I had a partner and I arranged him things like that and he never returned the gesture, I'd tell him that I'd appreciate it if he put some effort in to our dates too and if he didn't, I'd stop too. I'd enjoy my movies and dinners alone, or with a friend.

Anyway, for your possible future relationships: don't be all take. Or if you are, make sure she knows that you really appreciate what she does. Give her flowers or chocolate or something sometimes, even if it's not a habit of yours.

Quote:
One area where I "do" contribute to the romance is with words of affection. One of my ex-s actually told me that I am very romantic. And she was referring to words that I said over skype. So I guess its not that I am not romantic but rather I have different love language. So in terms of the type of thing I contribute to romance, it is "words of affection", and in terms of the thing I like to receive from the other person, it is "quality time".


Quality time as in just sitting on the couch or walking in the park together or quality time as in going out for dinners or movies? If the former, then I suppose that's fair, but if the later, then that's not. Words don't cost anything, movies and dinners do.

Quote:
Well, since everyone has friends except for me, I end up feeling "last" hence my frustration. I guess if I had "some" friends, I wouldn't mind as much not having other ones. But having "some" friends is the key here.


And you're sure that everyone else had them because...?

Quote:
I guess the parts I do NOT want are board games, loud parties, etc. And the parts I *do* want are emotional support, quiet presence, where I feel "protected" so to speak, as in "even if most people don't like me, I am okay as long as I am hanging around right here since I feel welcome". This sort of thing.


Hmm so you want a deep emotional connection and the support it brings? That's a nice thing to have (probably, I'm not sure if I've ever had that kind of friend), but there are also not as deep -type of friendships, like people you spend time with doing things you both enjoy, but don't actually talk about anything too serious. Usually the deep ones start like that, but not every friendship like that forms in to a serious one.

Quote:
I actually think it might be the opposite time sequence. How do I know whom in the room full of people do I want to be friends with, if I don't know anything about any of them? So ideally conversation should "just happen" with "everyone" in the room, and one would find out "in the process" whom they "click" with. But since for me that doesn't happen (I would be lucky if even one person in the room talks to me) I am at the predicament that I am at.


Yes, that would be an ideal setting, but in real life it's trial and error. You pick someone, go talk and check if you "click" and if yes, then great, but if not, then not. The more you do it, the likelier you're to find someone you click with.



TenMinutes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,948

31 Oct 2021, 2:19 pm

QFT wrote:
Are you referring to the fact that I wasn't receptive (sentences 1-3) or are you referring to the fact that I disclosed too much (sentence 5). It sounds like you see a connection between these two things since you put them in the same paragraph. Can you elaborate what that connection is?


From the perspective of conversation, there is little distinction between unapproachable and TMI. The former will prevent a conversation and the latter will end one. People want cheerful and shallow, at least to start.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

31 Oct 2021, 7:12 pm

Just give people a chance.

Don’t interrogate them at every juncture.

People don’t like feeling they are at an inquest within informal situations.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

02 Nov 2021, 12:36 pm

It won't let me submit it longer than a certain length. So I will break it into two parts:

PART 1:

Fireblossom wrote:
QFT wrote:
I see your point. I guess the three main issues is

(i) Since I know that the reasons I have to do it have to do with being perceived negatively, it kinda hurts my pride to do it

(ii) I don't know how to do it anyway. Case in point: few years ago there was a girl in a math class who kept looking at me. It took me a month to finally bring myself to talk to her after class and even after that I couldn't get myself to talk to her again. Now, in this case my pride was not hurt because she clearly liked me based on the signals she gave off. So no it wasn't pride at all. Rather it was the simple fact that I don't know how to bring myself to do it. Now seeing how she made it so much easier, just htink of how much harder it is with everyone else.

(iii) What you said about them changing their minds after they talk to me, that is also unlikely. On the contrary, if I look back at those rare times when I was lucky enough for people to approach me first, it often happened that after we talk for a few minutes they would excuse themselves. And, again, that would happen when THEY started the conversation first. Which means that the way in which I talked to them somehow changed their mind from liking me to not liking me. But now when it comes to people other than them, who already don't like me, that would be even worse. How could I ever get them from not liking me to liking me if with everyone else it tents to go in the opposite direction?


Knowing when to swallow one's own pride for the sake of making friends, and even more importantly, for the sake of keeping friends one has made, is a social skill.


That is an interesting idea. Could it be that the way it is a social skill is that it has to do with reading the social context? Because you see, I didn't just come up on my own with the idea that "if people don't talk to me they don't like me". I was actually "told" that is the case (in particular, I was told that, back in 2001, by the director of the Jewish club, that that is what was going on when I came to their meetings). Yet then there are "some" people (such as yourself) who are telling me that it isn't the case; yet there are still others that confirm that it is. So maybe its all about the context? And with pride same thing. Maybe in certain contexts I SHOULDN"T be swallowing my pride while in others I should. So if I have social skill to read the context then I would know "when to swallow my pride". If I don't have that skill, then my only two options are to err either in one direction or the other.

Fireblossom wrote:
Huh, that's interesting... stage fright? Kinda sounds like it.


I guess yes and no.

Well, I teach this semester, and I do experience stage fright as a teacher. So I would say that it is a bit different. When I teach I feel like I am being forced to talk when I don't feel all that confident. But in her case I wasn't "forced to talk". On the contrary: I was scared that she would think "why am I talking on the first place". So in this sense it would almost be forcing me "not to talk" rather than "to talk", making it a bit of an opposite in this sense.

Yet at the same time I also see the similarity. In both cases I can intertain the idea of doing it when I am "not" in a situation yet I feel an anxiety when I "am" in a situation. Different kind of anxiety, yes, but still the fact remainst hat it occurs when I am in a situation.

By the way with teaching I feel less of it now that its the second half of a semester. Thats because I know what to expect. Maybe socially it would be the same thing once I have enough practice, who knows? Still, however, teaching is not my cup of tea. As I teach I am pretty much figuring out how to pass time in the most painless way possible so that I don't make a full out of myself. Which I often do, as the student reports confirm. By the way, none of those reports said I am rude nor did they mention anything else thats related to the type of things I complain on WP; Instead they said I am extremely disorganized, which is true.

Fireblossom wrote:
Yeah, sometimes that happens. But you know, what makes you so sure that the people who don't talk to you don't like you?


1) The very first person who said that "not talking" is not the sign of neutrality but the sign of disliking me, was NOT me. Rather it was the direct of Hillel in Minnesota back in 2001. I simply took what she said and applied it elsewhere. The two complaints that she said people made is that

a) My conversation sounds accusatory
b) I don't shower

In any case, while I was welcome to keep coming to their events on campus, she didn't let me go on a Birthright Israel trip. I ended up going to Birthright Israel trip through some other organization few years later.

2) AFTER I talked to that woman Now that I have that idea that I am being disliked, I was asking this question to other people in other situations. The responses were split. Some people were confirming I was being disliked and were even telling me why. Others were telling me that no I am not being disliked. As far as people that say I am not being disliked, who knows whether they are honest or not: they might want to spare my feelings. But as far as people that confirm that I "am" being disliked, well they are clearly honest: they have no reason to purposely lie in order to hurt me. So thats what led me to feel like I am being disliked. Although its also possible that both of them are right since they saw me in different situations. As far as people that confirm that I am being disliked, a lot of them point to the same things. In particular,

a) I am too intense (loud voice; too blunt, too argumentative, etc)
b) I talk about myself too much and don't show any interest in other people
c) My appearance is too messy
d) I don't smile
e) I am "different" in ways that are hard to point out

3) In case of above, one might argue that those people didn't "really" see anything wrong but instead they were just "trying" to answer my question since I asked: after all they never said anything until I asked (in fact my mom told me just that when I was on a phone with her yesterday). So let me point out that there were "other" people that actually volunteered that information without me ever asking. For one thing, I never asked that kind of question "before" I spoken to that woman at the Jewish club. Yet others volunteered that information without me asking. For example, in that same school, I was working in a group on physics homework, and one guy in that group interrupted me to tell me I speak too lound and put others in a defensive. Did I asked him for his feedback? No. I wasn't even thinking as to what impression I was making; my only concern was to get my homework done. Yet he interrupted whatever physics thing I was talking about to tell me this. And he was not the only person to interrupt me to tell me I talk too loud. Plenty of people did (including both of my parents and their friends, as well as my high school teachers), long before I ever came across either that woman or that guy. I simply weren't taking them seriously. And yes, the things that people were telling me without my prompting were often the same types of things, such as

a) My voice was too loud
b) I come across as pushy/argumentative
c) I don't shower
d) I don't say please and thank you

Thats why it didn't really shock me when that guy said this to me either since he was just repeating what plenty of people told me.

4) There were specific incidents when I was accused of being homeless among other things. So if I take the incident when they called security at the laundary room (because I am homeless) or didn't let me into greyhound bus (because I am homeless), it is quite clear they didn't like me. Now, I know that those incidents happen maybe once a year. But still, once a year is more often than with most people. So from that I can extrapolate that people don't like me the rest of the year too, just not enough to be constantly reporting me.

5) There are specific things that people do that seems avoidant:

a) People tend not to sit next to me
b) People tend to be less chatty with me than they are with each other
c) On occasion people pretend not to hear me when I speak

6) Nobody ever invites me to any activities "outside" the activities I met them at. By the way I wasn't even going to list this item because I was focusing on the fact that they won't say basic hello to me. But when I read someone *else* on a *different* thread mentioning how she doesn't get invited to places, I was like "oh really? So that means they DO talk to her, just don't invite her; oh WOW she is doing so much better than me, so if SHE complains, how much more should I complain".

Quote:
If people simply ignore you like that, that usually means they're neutral about you. They have no specific reason why not to come and talk to you, but they have no reason to do so, either.


Well, here are the two things:

a) The leader of the Jewish club back at the University of Minnesota told me "if people don't like you they won't usually say it, they would just go to the other side of the room".

b) What about the people that talk to everyone BUT me. Like the waitresses I mentioned in OP were good examples. You see they had no reason to talk to those other customers eitehr: since they asked their names this shows they were strangers, just like I was. So since they talked to them but not me, that means I am "worse" than them somehow.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
Yes I also noticed that pattern. I haven't thought of the things you just mentioned though. Instead I was thinking that that they decide that if someone is alone then this person might have some personality flaw that pushed everyone else away, so they don't want to deal with that flaw. What you said, though, sounds a lot less negative than that. So it would be interesting to find out whether its my theory or yours that takes place.


I've heard a theory like that before, too. I think that it depends on the person and the situation; sometimes it's my theory, sometimes yours, sometimes something else.


Well, that theory is one reason why I go down that loop. Remember you asked me how do I know that people don't like me? Well, that theory implies that they have pretty good reason not to like me: namely, not like me for the fact that notoby else likes me. So that is one answer to your question how do I know this.

And yes this sounds really unfair. Because its like where can I possibly start? Each person would choose not to talk to me since they are looking at every other person that doesn't.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
If I go along with your theory, then it is very much true that if they approach me then they would be the center of my attention. But I kept thinking the opposite: since I clearly care about said interaction a lot more than others do, why not give me the exact thing I care about? But I guess if they have selfish perspective then it might make more sense. For example I don't like living with my mother because I don't want to be the center of her attention. Too much pressure.


Why do you think you care about it more than others


Actually I said it in the context of "your" theory. Your theory was that they don't want to approach a loner because they are afraid that they would be the sole focus of loner's attention. Now, that part so far is what you said, not me. But then the way I interpretted your statement was that a loner would care about the person more since its the only person that saves them from their loneliness. Well, thats not what you said, but I assumed thats what you meant. Thats why I went on to "agree" with what I thought you said and build off of that.

But even if you didn't say it, I still think thats true, for the very reason I just cited. If someone has 10 friends, they won't care about friend number 11. But if someone has no friends, then yes they would care about the one and only person that talks to them. Thats what I always thought long before you said what you did. I simply assumed that you also thought along those same lines that I was already thinking along. But perhaps I misunderstood what you meant? If so, please clarify.

Fireblossom wrote:
Also, even if they did know, why should they give you the thing you want, and not use their time to give someone else something that other person wants? Why should you be more important?


Because my situation is more desperate. The other person already has 10 friends and doesn't need 11-th. But I have no friends.

And here is the other thing. Remember how you agreed with me that it might happen that people are judged negatively for having no friends. Now, that should give people additional reason to become their friend, in order to save them from the negative judgement they are suffering.

Fireblossom wrote:
Also, your example about your mom might explain the reason why some people don't like you: you giving them too much attention puts too much pressure on them. Has anyone ever told you that you're too pushy? Or too demanding when it comes to social interaction?


Yes, indeed, I was told I come across as too pushy/demanding. As a matter of fact, sometimes I come acros without even intending to. Here is the latest example.

So as you recall I didn't want to get vaccinated for religious reasons so I filed for religious exemption. And yes I got one granted on September 30. But, at the end of August, when I met someone from my Bible study, I didn't know what would happen with my exemption request yet. So when he asked me how I was doing I talked about it. Then, when I came to Bible study few days later, and I was standing not talking to anyone, he decided to try to engage me in a conversation. So he asked me how was my exemption request. Now, I found it weird that he asked me that question. I mean its only been two days, why would anything change within two days? When I hear something, I would tell him. He doesn't have to ask before then. In any case, a week later I asked the guy that leads the Bible study why people don't like me. Now, he wasn't all negative in his answer. He pointed some areas where I improved and one Bible study where I acted in a way that he really liked. However, to answer my question, one example that he gave me was how I kept talking to that guy about the exemption from vaccine which was excessive. And I was like wait a second I thought he was the one who asked me about it during that second time I met him and I was the one who thought it was too much? Well he was referring to the first meeting not the second one. But during the first meething I thought I just answered his question on how I was doing? Sure, he didn't ask me about vaccine exemptions (why would he, if he didn't know I wanted one on the first place) but he asked me how I was doing and I answered his question how I was doing in this way. Sure, I rambled about it quite a bit. But the fact that I "happened" to ramble doesn't mean I "want" him to ask me about the topic two days later.

Now you see what just happened? The guy that led the Bible study thought I *demanded* to talk about this topic, when I wasn't. Why would I think "why is this weirdo asking me about it just two days later" *IF* I was the one who demand it? So that should imply that maybe I didn't demand it after all? Yet it came across as if I did.

And similarly there are also situations where things get known about me that I didn't intend to. For example, when I was transferring from Minnesota, my mom told me I shouldn't tell about it to anyone untnil I am about to leave, because it would create bad impression. I listened to her. But then I talked to one student and she asked me how my transfer is going. So I asked her how did she know it. And she said everyone knows it. Because my voice is so loud that when I talked about it everyone heard it.

So you see the parallel:

--- When I simply ramble about exemption, I came across as if I *demanded* they talk to me about it

--- When I don't intend to let anyone know I am transfering, somehow they "hear" me talk about it anyway

So the point is that I am more loud/blunt than I intend to.

Yet, at the same time, you are telling me that people "don't" know that I want them to talk to me because I never said this. Now you see why its hard to believe? If in those other examples people hear MORE than I intend to communicate, why would in this specific example they hear LESS.

In case of exemptions from vaccine, I didn't really care whether they talk to me about it or not (they don't have a power to grant one anyway). Yet they thought I was demanding it. In case of waitresses in the caffeteria, I actually DO care that they talk to me. Wouldn't, logically, this imply that in caffeteria I would come

Fireblossom wrote:

Of course, this can only apply to people who you've actually talked to, so it can't be a reason for strangers to avoid you, but others who you've been in contact with more.


Actually, sometimes in response to my question about it I WAS in fact told that strangers avoid me because of some of those things. But then, as you just pointed out, it makes no sense, since there is no way for strangers to know how I talk. Well, there was also no way for people in Minnesota to know I was graduating. Yet, somehow, they did. So maybe strangers similarly know things they aren't supposed to know?

Here is another example. Back in Mississippi, I asked church pastor why people don't talk to me. He told me that I talk about myself a lot more than about other people. Now the question: when did that ever had a chance to happen, if I never talked to them on the first place? Another good question I am puzzled over.

Fireblossom wrote:

I don't think people think about the other person being lonely in these situations. Rather than that, the reason why they find leaving harder is because they don't want to come off as rude.


That logically implies the other question. If people do talk to me, and then excuse themselves, does this mean that they REALLY dislike me, since they were willing to come off as rude? Because when they do talk to me then, yes, it is usually for a short time. Yet you are saying that its rude to talk for a short time to someone who is by themselves.

Fireblossom wrote:

Quote:
c) They figure that since everyone else apparently left me, maybe they would be more likely to end up leaving too (due to whatever it is that pushed outhers way)


This could be valid, but of course, strangers can never know for sure if you spend all your free time alone or if you just happen to be alone today. Of course, if you keep going to the same place that always have the same people, some are likely to notice that you always come alone, but they might not really think much of it. They have no reason to ignore you, but no reason to talk to you, either, so they just do what they came to do.


Well, I do go to the same places over and over, so people do notice I am alone all the time.

In terms of the above paragraph, you said two opposite things. The beginning of that paragraph says that if they know I am alone all the time they might judge me negatively. Yet the end of the above paragraph says that they won't. So can you elaborate on how these two statements go together?

Fireblossom wrote:

Though honestly, I'm not entirely convinced about you having the skill to recognize when someone doesn't like you. If you talk to someone and they don't answer then yes, unless they have a hearing problem, they clearly don't want to talk to you. But other people ignoring you when you aren't doing anything to get their attention (like talking) isn't the same as them not liking you.


Well, on few occasions it did happen that I talked to them and they pretended not to hear me.

By the way what about the situations described in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=401209
If you agree that responding with silence is a sign of disliking me, would you also agree that pretending not to understand my accent is a sign of disliking me too?

In my case both things happened. The silence happens more rarely, confusion over the accent more often.

Fireblossom wrote:

Quote:
Probably because she gave me non-verbal cue that its welcome, while everyone else are giving me non-verbal cue that it isn't.


What are these cues? Glaring? Moving away when you move closer?


Both.

Although apparently there were some occasions when I misinterpretted them:

1) I remember a couple of years ago I thought a certain girl at church was glaring at me. I actually asked her about it and she said she was just looking to see if her older lady friend was coming which had nothing to do with me. Then said older lady friend, who learned about my question, set me up on a date with her, but that date didn't go well.

2) Few days ago a different girl at church moved away from me. But then during aaronic blessing she called me in closer and then afterwords asked me a few questions about me thinking I was new. It seems like I made a mistake that after both herself and older women introduced themselves to me I asked if the older woman was her mother (the answer was no). She only talked to me for a minute or two and said she will talk to me next time I come. Which by the way goes back to that question where you said its rude to cut conversation short with someone who is alone which makes me wonder if I put her off that badly. But in any case, one thing I suspect is this. Few years ago someone asked security to check if there are weapons in my bag because my bag was too huge (it was full of books). Well this time I also had a huge bag. I opened the books to study not right away but towards the end of the service. So maybe when she moved away she thought I had weapons, but then, after I started studying, she realized those were books, so that could have been the reason her mindset changed. Now, this is just my theory: the security incident was few years ago, while this girl was few days ago.

By the way, I go with large backpack pretty much everywhere. Do you think this could be the reason people are suspicious of me?

But going back to what you were saying. You asked me if people glare at me or move away from me. My answer is they do both (moving away more often than glaring, but glaring too). I also mentioned that there were two occasions where I apparently misinterpretted them. So that suggests that I might have misinterpretted some fraction of other occasions. But then again, in the other fraction of occasions I might well be right. In fact, who knows, maybe I was right few days in the church too: maybe if I didn't open my books she would have thought there were guns and would have never talked to me.

And here is the "opposite" example to point out, to illustrate my point. So, like I mentioned earlier, the guy who leads Bible study was quite honest in terms of answering my questions as to why people don't like me. In any case, one day I was passing by, and he was sitting at the chair. He was looking at me as I was passing. But *not* in a glaring way. In the opposite way: it looked like he wanted me to come talk to him. I was on my way to buying lunch and I was really hungry so I kept walking anyway. But then on the way back after I ate my lunch he kept looking at me similarly. So I came to talk to him. As it turns out, he wanted to tell me how much he appreciate the way I acted on the last Bible studies. He said that normally I am pushy with my point of view, but this time I acknowledged that others opinions are also valid, by ending my sentence with "at least thats how I see it". Actually on my end it wasn't on purpose at all: sometimes I do that sometimes I don't, its just a phrasing. But he said it really helped. And he said that he enjoyed how I acted in other respects too the last Bible study.

But here is the thing. How did I know that he wanted to talk to me before he ever did? And how come I interpretted the way he looked at me as inviting while in case of all the other people I don't interpret it this way? So maybe -- just like NTs -- I can subconsciously tell whether certain looks are positive or negative, even though I can't always articulate it? But, if so, then maybe in case of all the other people when I am interpretting their looks as negative I am actually right?

In fact, even if I were to go back to answering your question whether people are glaring at me or not, how do I define the word "glaring"? I can't say that glaring is looking, because that Bible study guy on that occasion clearly wasn't glaring. I would define glaring as "looking in a negative way". But how do I tell if the look is positive or negative? There is no way to really do that, because those signals are subconscious rather than conscious. So what that means is that, even as an aspie, I can still pick up on subconscious signals. And those subconscious signals is what gives me idea that I am not liked.

The other thing about that particular occasion is that he was teaching sociology class. No that class had nothing to do with Bible study: in fact he wasn't allowed to talk about religion in that class. So that particular time he was holding "office hours" for that class: meaning he was sitting there for an hour specifically for people in that class to come talk to him. Nobody from his class was coming talk to him. So since he had to pass his time somehow, he was more willing to talk to me than usual. Now, in parallel to that, I noticed on occasion that if a girl is sitting all by herself, has no friends, etc. then she might also look at me in a way that would make me "suspect" she is open to my talking to her. Now, her look would not be as obvious as that mans look. In case of that man its like "hey he wants to tell em something" while in case of a girl it would be more like "she seems a bit more open to me; I wonder if thats the case". Thats why with the girl I would never have a guts to go talk to her (unlike him).

But the point I am trying to make is that it only happens when girl is all by herself, and its rare Most of the people (whether male or female) have a company, and when they do, I never get that kind of signal that they are open to my coming talk to them. Just like that Bible study guy: most of the time he isn't stuck sitting in one place with nothing to do. So most of the time I don't get that kind of signal from him either. So could this go back to the thing you talked about groups of people vs lone individuals? While, like both of us said, NT-s are less open to talk to lone individuals, lone individuals are the ones "more" open to talk to others? In fact I remember somebody advised me to come and talk to someone alone (I don't remember if it was you, or somebody else on WP, or somebody outside of WP).

Here is something else I just remembered. So one of the examples of people that gave me negative feedback without my asking (item 3 on one of my lists) was a Russian guy at one of the physics conferences. He was the one who approached me first to talk about his theories. And, after that, I kept asking him to help me find postdoc positions, which he didn't want to do. So he found it frustrating that I didn't take no for an answer and kept asking him. Yes he still wanted to talk to me about other things (in fact he would start a conversation with him every time he runs across me at a conference) but at the same time he was annoyed about that particular aspect of me. In any case, during one of the conferences he told me that he wants to spend some time with me AFTER the conference is over, but he doesn't want to talk to me DURING the conference. And the reason he gave me is that my behavior is "not adequate" so if people see him around me, they would think its not only me who is "not adequate" but him too. I then asked him why is he thinking my behavior is not adequate. He told me he doesn't have enough time to give me sufficient feedback. And recommended I spend time in front of the mirror to see that.

But now see how he was willing to spend time with me after the conference, just not during? So the issue was not that he himself didn't like me but rather that he didn't want to be "seen" around me? So could this be related to the question as to why the times when people are giving me welcoming look is when they are all by themselves? Could it be that they are telling me with their look the same thing that he was telling me with words?

Fireblossom wrote:
I used to get both at the school's lunch hall and eventually got the clue, though it took me a while. Not that I was able to do anything about it since the rules said we had to fill the tables in the order we got there (this was in elementary school.)


So do you have any idea as to "why" you were disliked?

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
Interestingly enough, as an introvert, I do feel tired after I am around people for too long, and I need some alone time to re-charge. Yet I don't strain myself in the way my mom talked about: she was trying to tell me that I should put effort into how I interact, and thats precisely the thing I don't do. Yes I put a lot of effort over-analyzing my past mistakes (whether they be 5 minutes ago or 5 months ago or 5 years ago) but I don't actually put any effort into putting my best foot forward (which is exactly what my mom was trying to get at).


Um, why? Why don't you put effort in to socializing? I would understand if you didn't care what people think about you, but since that's obviously not the case, why aren't you putting in the effort to make them like you, or at least try to make sure they won't dislike you, when you have the chance?


Because 99% of the time people don't talk to me on the first place. So my focus is not "how would I talk when someone talks to me" but rather "why is nobody talking to me". And then, during 1% of the time when someone finally does talk, I wouldn't have known they would talk a minute before they started. So my immediate reaction is "wow, I am glad they talk" rather than "how should I carry the conversation".

For example in case of the girl in a church it was probably a mistake I asked her whether that older woman was her mother. But I only realized this after the fact. Now, if I were to think ahead of time how I would speak, maybe I would have said "alright I shouldn't ask this question because if she isn't, then it would be weird; I should talk to them for 5 minutes and maybe ask it a bit later if it doesn't become apparent". But it would take *time* to think about all that. And how would I be able to take that time if I didn't know ahead of time they were going to talk to me on the first place? Well, you might say that I was standing next to her for the whole hour of service so I had that whole hour to think how I would talk after the service is over. But, again, I wasn't able to predict she would talk to me. On the contrary, I was thinking she was avoiding me because she moved away. So, yes, I was thinking what I would do after the hour was over. But what I pictured myself doing was quickly walking towards lunch place to get out of that situation and then hopefully someone else will talk to me at lunch if I was lucky, although probably they wouldn't. Well, by the way, they didn't have lunch after the service, which is the other surprise. So if I was picturing one situation and then there was a different one, I didn't really have time to think things through on how I would act.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
So how come I feel the need to recharge despite the fact that I don't strain in that way? Could it be that I do strain just not notice it? Or is it different kinds of straining?


Well, it is possible that the strain you feel is a physical one, like you need a break from all the noise and stuff, but I think it's likelier that you're doing something differently when you're with people than when you're alone that comes so naturally that you don't notice the difference, only the following exhaustion.


Yeah, I think my "doing something differently" is the likelier reason. Because if I study at a restaurant and there are a lot of people, I don't feel the need to get away from them, regardless of how many noise they make. Thats because I am not part of the group so I already have my freedom. But if I am in a group of people, even if they are quiet (such as in the office), I still feel a need to get away.

Fireblossom wrote:
Something like listening to what others say? After all, that's not something you do when you're alone 'cause there's no one around to listen to.


Even if they don't talk I feel a need to get away. I guess its just a feeling that I am expected to stay at that one place so I feel trapped. If I am not around people, I can still be in one place anyway (in fact thats why I go to restaurants to encourage myself to be in one place so I can avoid the disractions) but I don't feel trapped since I can "decide" to pay my bill and go any time I feel like it. In case of office, technically, I can go away any time I feel like it too: there is no requirenment I spend any time in my office other than 1 hour a week for my students. But still, somehow I have a feeling as if my officemates "assume" I am going to stay there, so as long as there are any of the officemates around, I feel trapped until either they leave or I do.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
I guess if I try to "ask myself" that question, the answer I can produce is as follows. Lets say I am studying at a restaurant, and lets say I need a change of scenary. So I go to a different restaurant. But if I am in a group of people, I can't do it. I feel stuck in the same place. Or lets say I feel like buying a candy bar. If I am by myself I will go ahead and do it. In a group of people I won't have guts to.

So I guess this does amount to altering my behavior when I am around people, after all. So maybe the issue is just the fact that I am not altering the right aspects of it?


Hm, I'm not sure if I'm following. So, when you're alone, you do what you feel like doing, yet when you're with others, for one reason or the other you don't have the guts for it, even if it's something like going to buy a snack and then come back? Or suggesting that you (as in the whole group) change locations? If I understood correctly then yes, I think you're altering the wrong aspects of your behavior. I can go in to more detail about this if I did understand correctly, but in case I didn't, I won't say more on this one until I know for sure in order to avoid any misunderstandings.


Yes, you understood correctly. When I am in a group of people I can't buy myself anything to eat or suggest they change locations.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
But are there any of them that are actually in academia? Thats the question.


Definitely, but once they get caught, they get kicked out from there... or at least, they should be. Some with enough connections and money probably cover it all up though.


Okay I realize there are such people now that you pointed out. I mean, every university has an office that performs disciplinary actions. There won't be any need for such office if everyone was well behaved.

However, the question is: how many are those people? I mean it is safe to assume that nobody in my class and none of my professors was ever subject to such actions. So if those people are rare, why would women be wary of me as if I might be one of them?

Now, if you ask me are they rare in town, no they aren't. Here in Albuquerque there are lots of homeless, and no I don't feel safe around them. I cross the street every time I see them and I pay for the taxi when I have to go home at the dark. But, again, those people are not at the university. I am not afraid of university people at the dark. I am afraid of street people. In fact, even if you ask me why am I afraid to walk at the university campus at the dark, the answer is that I am afraid some streat people will wonder in (which happens sometimes). I am not afraid of professors or other students.

Fireblossom wrote:
Quote:
Speaking of that, do you think people have picked up on the fact that the people I obsess of who don't talk to me are usually women, and *thats* ultimately the reason why women don't talk to me?


Possible. Or they might not have paid attention to the part that they're women, but just that you obsess over some people and they don't want to risk ending up as one of those people.


Do you think they get non-verbal clues about it, or do you think it only happens when I actually talk about it?

If they can get it from non-verbal clues, then how could you say that they don't know I actually want them to talk to me, if they know even more than that: that I obsess?

Actually the other related thing is this. One of the girls I talked to on a dating site rejected me for two reasons:

a) She felt like I didn't like her

b) She was tired of my obsessing over her

So I asked her "how can you say I don't like you if I obsess? Why would you obsess over someone I don't like?" And she said "Easily: you obsess just to obsess". To me this sounds like a total contradiction, yet she never bothered to answer this question.

Or here is another girl whom I asked something similar. The conversation went like this:

Me: I know one reason you broke up with me is because I drove you crazy when I was obsessing about different things you said. Now, what would have happened if I were to tell you that the reason I obsess about them is because they emotionally hurt me. Would this have helped?

Her: Yes

Me: But isn't it obvious that I was emotionally hurt without my having to say this? Why would I obsess about something *unless* I am emotionally hurt?

Her: Here you go again

So you see, in case of both of those women, they know I am obsessed yet they don't know I have any emotions. To me that is a total contradiction. Yet somehow they seem to believe in that contradiction. So do you think with others the same thing happens? And thats why they don't know I want them to talk to me, yet they know I obsess (enough so to be annoyed)?



Last edited by QFT on 02 Nov 2021, 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.