Are women blind, or super-vigilant, or both?

Post Reply New Topic

As far as "equal", she also does multiple Ph.D.-s just like me. She does third ph.d., I do 2-nd ph.d. Also she traveled to China where she was working as a missionary, while I traveled to India where I did my postdoc. So we do have some things in common if you look at it that way.



Having a job and going somewhere is not the same thing. I don't have a job but I am most definitely "going somewhere": I am trying to get my dream job of theoretical physics some time down the road. In fact thats the entire reason I chose not to get a job, so that it won't take away time from this endeavor.



I already have Physics Ph.D. and I am doing second Ph.D. in math. The main reason I do that is that I can't find a job as a theoretical physicist due to the fact that I don't have enough publications. So I need time to publish more papers. Now, as a graduate student, I am a TA (that is, teaching assistant) and this results in financial support that covers a tuition plus gives me money on top. That way I don't have to look for a job, so that I can sit down and focus on my publications.

Apart from that, I also might get help from the professor I am under in helping me getting papers published. When I was not in grad school (I took few years between two grad schools) and I was asking different people to publish my papers, they were postponning it indefinitely. So I thought that, if I were in grad school, they won't postpone it since it would be their duty.

It didn't work out as nicely as I thought it would. Even though I don't have to go to work every day, I had to take classes and spend time on this. And, even though I do have a professor who is my advisor, he is a mathematician not a physicist. I was hoping to work with someone in a math department who does physics -- and they have such people in *some* universities -- but I wasn't as lucky as I hoped. But in any case its still better than it could have been, since I found a type of project that is overlap between my work and his.



I can't tell about that part, I don't know her well enough. I guess I would instinctively think that, since she was willing to be a missionary in China, she sounds pretty flexible. But then again maybe she has some projects that are costly. Who knows.



But then why did she point to that particular word if you don't think it was about the word choice? Why didn't she just say it in her own words?



But why does she think that saying "its over because of this word you misphrased" is a better exit than simply being honest and saying "its over because of what you did few days ago"?



Here is the thing though. Suppose it was genuine. In this case, I misread her -- and my reaction was the result of this misreading. Now, suppose someone blind doesn't see a pie. Would you conclude they don't like pies or would you conclude they are blind? Well, same thing here. I very much *do* care what she appreciates; I just *didn't see* it -- hence I reacted within a context of my misinterpretation.

Since physics and math are so close why do two PhD's? one should be enough

I would do a masters by coursework specialising in math modelling or something applied if you want leverage in the job market since you already have a PhD

I don't have enough publications though. Most people in physics who get jobs have 15 or 20 papers. I have 30 papers on arxiv.org but only 4 of them are published so far (at the time I talked to that woman I had probably either 2 or 3 published). So I need to go to school so that

a) I can buy myself time to get those papers published without having to worry about getting a job since I can be a TA

b) I can get help from my advisor in getting them published.

If it wasn't for that, I would have agreed with you, one ph.d. is enough. But the thing is that I don't want to get a job outside of theoretical physics (so I don't want to teach in community college or work in a lab) since theoretical physics was my dream job since I was 9. So I am trying to prolong my time at school so that I can get that job.



I am a bit confused now. So you are saying ph.d. won't help me but masters would? How is it possible? I thought ph.d. is more than masters?

In any case, like I said, I am basically trying to prolong the time at school. It takes longer to get a ph.d. than to get a masters, hence thats what I do.

Not if women are just emotional calculating (knowingly or not) and you don't even have an idea of it nor what their emotions are because you are lacking those emotions completely. Nobody tells you nor gives honest answers about this not even here. That's the big problem once you have Asperger's. You don't want to be mean but either you are hurting their emotions because of this or they just dislike you from beginning because they don't understand the way you are at all. If you don't have Asperger's and alexithymia and are able to relate to them and are feeling empathy then it's a totally different thing. You get immediately if they like you and you are aware of what they are wanting of you. But who on earth has an idea of expectations of others which are calculating and judging regarding things he doesn't know nor isn't aware of at all?

So we get that your husband is a millionaire?

<shake head>
You truly are a cheeky bugger, Boo. <sigh>

lol Boo makes me laugh.

He's not a millionaire per se no, business is worth a fair few bob though cause it's performance car trades. I won't go into much more detail than that. The point I was making is that it's possible to form a really successful relationship, if I can do it with autism any f****r can you just gotta be a knower of things.

Although obviously bit different for blokes, but that said I do know of autistic business owners with wife and kids who are doing exceedingly well (my autism-dar is very powerful).

I've always said, no matter how hard it is you need to communicate and get your point across in a clear concise way if you want to be in something proper with someone otherwise what do they have to go off if they do something you don't like?

Yes, I also think communicating and getting my point across is important. In fact, that is what driving me crazy: I keep *trying* to get my point across, but I don't *get* it across, no matter how hard I try. Like I can't communicate a simple fact such as "I didn't mean I don't care I was being sarcastic" or "yes I am interested now, I just accidentally misused the words". How much simpler can it get? And yes, I was *trying* to get those two points across -- I kept repeating myself over and over in lots of different ways, and did so for hours and days on end. Yet I still didn't get that simple point across.

The only thing that helps is becoming aware of the emotional expectations of women towards men. Women don't care your degree nor physics and your knowledge about it. They care your body-language, the way you dress and the way that other guys are towards you and your visibly self-confidence towards men and women. In a group of apes the alpha is the one the females want. He should be able to care about food, being dominant towards other males and liking and protecting the woman. Humans are apes as you should know and many women are still just looking for such an alpha.

The thing is that men had to be more than just apes for being successful hunters and warriors because they had to stand together and for this and rely on each other. It something that is quite foreign to women who mostly don't care loyality nearly the same if at all.

The woman who did say she wants a leader did mean an alpha ape but not a leader. Women who are like this have usually no idea of leaders nor the way that men are at all.
OK some guys are kind of chimps and into ape hierarchies. But leaders are more and usually the most trustworthy and fearless guys because a leader is the one who risk his ass for others and who others are willingly to risk their asses for. Most of the biggest guys totally dislike the idea of becomming a leader and risk their ass for others who may just rely on them and their size. Most men prefere unemotional, bright, trustworthy and quite dominant guys as leaders. That's why fearless men with Asperger's are well liked among men and may be well accepted if they claim the leadership. May be that's even the reason why Asperger's exists.

Hey girls - please excuse if I got you wrong but it's just as the things seem to me.
It would be interesting to know not what you like on men but how you see yourself regarding those.

Last edited by quite an extreme on 24 Sep 2020, 6:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Is your doctorate by research? then its a waste of time. If you have started a coursework doctorate that is ok but masters level is enough.

I was going to recommend a) enrolling in a masters by coursework to gain advanced training in math modelling and ii) joining a research group as a research fellow where you can use your masters to publish papers on mathematical modelling. that does two things i) gives you the necessary math skills and you can customise the units you need and ii) use your papers to get equivalency to other math graduates (since you already have a PhD having a second one is not necessary)

These days most people are submitting dissertations by publication anyway so if you wanted to gain tenure in a senior lecturer position in math then just submit 2-3 high impact math articles as a dissertation.

I'm aware of that.



I was referring to an example from an earlier thread, because it's a more obvious and more extreme example of why getting angry and saying you don't care doesn't prove that you actually care about the woman in the way she wants you to, and because you brought up the same point - the 'Isn't anger, in and of itself, a proof that I *do* care' thing - in that other thread as well.



Alright, when I said that even though you getting angry and saying you don't care implies you care in some way it does not imply you care about her the way she wants you to, I didn't mean that that's exactly what goes on in her mind at that moment.

In the earlier thread called 'Taking "I Don't Care" Too Literally' you seemed perplexed about why those women couldn't figure out that you didn't mean 'I don't care' literally and that they didn't conclude that it implies you do care. And in this thread you brought up that anger supposedly is proof that you care again.

What I said about 'not caring the way they want you to' instead was meant as an explanation for why they think your reaction actually means you don't care. They think about the word 'care' the way it is usually used in the context of romantic and close interpersonal relationships and more specifically they think of the word 'care' in the context of how they want to be cared about. They don't consider that there is a broader definition of the word 'care' and that the statement that 'you don't care' may be false if they applied the dictionary definition of the word. Whether the statement is false if the broadest meaning of the word 'care' is applied isn't really relevant to the situation. What's relevant to the situation is if you care in the ways they want you to care.


Yes.



She might not have known what exactly you meant by 'care'. You might have to some extent been talking past each other. But if the statement that you do care is true or false by your definition of 'care' ultimately isn't that relevant for whether she wants to be in a relationship with you if it is not the kind of caring she wants.

The argument started by you saying you don't care. It was impolite and (at least seemingly) intentionally hurtful - implying that at least at that moment you did not care about her in a way that would make you not want to hurt her feelings. This plus the statement itself supports her assertion that you don't care about her - at least in one relevant way. And you afterwards saying that you do care does not negate that. Because even though you wouldn't say you do care if you don't care in any way, you saying you do care doesn't mean you care in the ways she wants you to.


Your word choice may also have rubbed her the wrong way. That may have prompted her to jump onto the word 'hide'. However, that doesn't make the word 'hide' more relevant than the actual content of your message. Reusing a word you just used may also have been a rhetoric choice.

Hard to know if it's emotional thing and your are unable to feel the same way.

It's the same if it comes to 'hide'. Most people as well as women are visual thinkers. May be she imagined him as a guy who hides instead of standing his ground as the alpha ape of her wet dreams would. Once you aren't a visual thinker then it's nothing but a word which has several context related meanings. But visual thinkers relate words to pics in their heads which don't necessary fit your own imaginations about those words.

Last edited by quite an extreme on 24 Sep 2020, 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

How can you not?
Just look at that face. EEP!

For people with Asperger's who can't relate to the emotions of women it's hard to guess. Women expect men to match their feelings. That's a hard thing if you don't have empathy and are unaware of how they even see themself. But knowing about how they see themself is the base of understanding female behaviour and expectations. May be answering this is kind of soul striptease because a lot of this may be related to sexual and nonsexual feelings and the whole way of thinking. But I can't see why we can't talk about this here.

Thats a really interesting point that I never thought about. So do you think she actually imagines apes and/or some other scenario that she "knows" isn't happening (as in a warrior hiding from a dragon or something)? I actually did that in the context of high school literature and history classes back in the 8-th grade I thought it was just me being weird, and I was kinda laughing at the fact that I did it. I didn't realize that other people do that too.

So here is what I did at the 8-th grade. Both our Literature and History classes were pertaining to John the Terrible, his successor Fyodr, and his helpers Boris and Shuysky (Boris was going to become a czar after Fyodr because Fyodr didn't have kids since his wife was infertile -- but we weren't talking about that time, we were talking about the time when Fyodr was still a czar). In any case, Fyodr was mentally disabled, so Boris and Shuyski were trying to "effectively" rule the country by telling Fyodr what to do -- and most of the time they wanted him to do opposite things since they had opposite interests -- and usually Fyodr ended up doing what Boris wanted rather than Shuyski. Boris and Shuyski were also competting to become future czars, but Boris asked one of his helpmates to strangle Shuyski, and thats how Boris ended up being the future Czar.

In any case, I found the analogy of that scenario and what was going on in my family. So my mom was in America, and I was still in Russia (my mom came to America because she unexpectedly landed a new job while me and my dad only joined her two years later -- eventually both me and my mom got US citizenship so thats why I am in America now). In any case, I was back in Russia back when I was thinking of this. So, back in Russia, my mom was not in the picture, and the two people that were telling me what to do were my dad and my grandma (by grandma and grandpa I mean moms parents: neither of my dads parents were alive). So my dad and my grandma didn't get along with each other, and they wanted me to do opposite things. I was staying at my grandma's place throughout the week and I was coming to my dad for the weekend (because the school I was on the side of Moscow where my grandparents appartment is). But sometimes my father wanted me to come to his house during the evening of the week, so I could practice piano -- and my grandma was objecting to this. Also my father was taking me to musical concerts every few days, and my grandma was thinking its too much. So both my dad and my grandma were telling me its ultimately my decision, yet they were both pushing their way; I usually ended up "choosing" to do what my dad wanted -- even though supposedly it was my decision.

In any case, in my brain I made an analogy between this and what I read in history class. So the fact that my grandma was a female while everyone in that story was male didn't really help it, so I substitutted my grandma with my grandpa. Now, this right there distorts things: my grandpa got along with both my dad and my grandma just fine, and he wasn't even part of that conflict. But it was more convenient to me to pretend as if my grandpa was the one doing everything my grandma was doing -- and my grandma was his servant or something. Anyway, so basically I pretended that I was Fyodr, my dad was Boris and my grandpa was Shuyski. So my dad and my "grandpa" are both telling me it is my decision, just like Boris and Shuyski were both telling Fyodr its his decision. But -- despite it being "my" decision -- my dad and my grandpa are "strongly encouraging" me to do whatever "they" want. Similarly with Fyodr -- despite the fact that it was supposedly "his" decision -- both Boris and Shuysky were "strongly encouraging" him to do what "they" want. And I was normally choosing to do what my dad wanted, just like Fyodr was usually choosing to do what Boris wanted.

I was also really fascinated by the fact that it wasn't Boris himself who strangled Shuyski but rather it was someone else, and I wasn't told who "someone else" was. Oftentimes it was said "Boris strangled Shuyski" because it was "effecitvely" him, although it wasn't really him. So each time I heard this, I was correcting them "no it wasn't Boris it was someone else" and asking them to tell me who he is -- even though I knew they probably didn't know, but I found it entertaining to ask that question anyway. I remember one time in history class we were supposed to do some group project where we have to choose one question out of a list. Instead of choosing a question I tried to add my own question to the list and choose it: I wrote "who strangled Shuyski". Predictably, history teaching didn't want me to add this question (I knew she wouldn't, I just wanted to see her reaction). So then I told her "but isn't it still interesting who strangled him". And she said "he wasn't strangled, he was shot". I guess I learned that he was strangled in the literature class rather than history class and I learned it from one of the novels we were reading. So I am still not sure whether it is actual controversy what in fact happened or whether they purposely altered it in the novel or what. I actually looked it up on google and the other version is that he was gassed (no, I didn't have internet back then -- I mean I looked it up this year during one of those times I was reflecting on it). In any case, I was insisting on sticking to the version where he was strungled because thats what I originally read.

In any case, according to what I originally read, he was strangled in the middle of a night. So I immediately pictured the following scenario. My "grandpa" is sleeping in his bed at night, then my dad's *friend* Nikolay comes into appartment and tells him in a quiet-angry-voice "you are such a horrible person, I am going to strangle you" and then begins strangling. So basically the reason I kept asking "who strangled Shuyski" is because I knew who my dad was, I knew who my grandpa was, but I had no idea who Nikolay was. So I wanted to match Nikolay to someone in that story. And thats also why I remembered this whole thing so well by the way. Normally in my English and history classes I didn't really care what was going on, I wanted to go back to do my math and physics. But with this particular thing I cared since it looked so similar to my family.

But once again I thought it was just me being weird. I didn't know that other people do it.

Now, if you look at my story critically, you will find several inconsistencies. First, like I pointed out, it should have been my grandma rather than my grandpa, but I put my grandpa since Shuyski was a male. Secondly, that story completely leaves out whether my grandma was in the bed with a grandpa or not, and it also leaves out whether I was in the appartment (since I am there most of the week) and why didn't I come to my grandpas defense. It also leaves out how did Nikolay come into the appartment on the first place since he didn't have a key? I mean according to the story he didn't ring a bell -- rather he walked into the room when my grandpa was sleeping.

And by the way this was not the only time I did this. Here is more recent example (well, not so recent, maybe it is an example from 2010 rather than 1994). So both of my parents are backpackers, but my dad is much stronger than my mom, so supposedly my dad should be able to walk faster. But "be able" is a key word: in some of the real life situations my mom walked faster than my dad simply because we weren't on a backpacking trip but rather we were taking vacation so I guess my dad wanted to take it easy while my mom felt she was in a hurry somewhere. Now, at the time I was trying to study quantum field theory and was trying to find the book that is the most suitable for me. So one of the books I was using was Peskin and Schroeder, and the other one I was using was Ryder. Peskin and Schroeder book has a lot more material than Ryder but, at the same time, it might "look like" Ryder has more formulas -- simply because Peskin and Schroeder skips all the derivations (since it is aimed at the stronger audience who would be able to fill in the gaps) while Ryder, being aimed at the weaker audience, tries to fill in those gaps itself. In any case, I pictured the scenario in which my dad wrote Peskin and Schroeder and my mom wrote Ryder. So -- just like Peskin and Schroeder has more material than Ryder -- in the same way my dad is stronger than my mom. And -- just like Ryder has more formulas on a page -- in the same way my mom tries to walk faster than my dad. Now, if I were to fill in the gaps in the story, it would look pretty absurd. So what would supposedly happen is that both my mom and my dad would decide to learn physics in order to help me out, and they would both learn physics much faster than me, so they would both be able to write their own respective textbooks for me to study and, somehow, they would choose to write textbooks for me instead of talking to me directly. I guess my dad is sort of a physicist -- although he is a lot more engineer than a physicist so he knows a lot less physics than I do -- while my mom is not in sciences at all, she works with deaf children. So I guess it would be pretty funny to picture something of this sort happening. But I guess my mind didn't care about those kinds of questions, it pictured this scenario anyway.

Also there was a time -- around 15 years ago -- when I googled "rejection line" (in order to overanalyze what women mean by LJBF) but instead I ran into this website right here http://rejectionline.com/ which talks about giving "rejection phone numbers" in order to avoid giving a real number. Then I got fascinated about it so I started google searching on this, and I found that while that specific rejection number was tied to New York, there were its counterparts that were tied to West Coast (various places in California and perhaps other states). So the west coast version of it had people tell their rejection stories to win a prize and their rejection stories were told by the person that called the number. But for some reason there were only 3 stories and they were always the same so maybe they weren't real people calling but instead people that organized that site pretended to be those people, I have no clue. In any case, two of those stories had one voice -- that reminded me of the voice of my TA for thermodynamics class (he was actually really weird) and the third voice sort of reminded me of my dad. So I basically imagine that one of them was -- in fact -- my TA and the other one was -- in fact -- my dad. Now, even though my dad and my mom was sort of separated they weren't totally separated, they still acted as a couple in some sense and neither of them were looking for anyone else. So I remember picturing how my dad decided to look for women just to test out the waters to see what the situation is like in order to help me out. It was actually pretty funny idea. Then the other thing is that if I go on a website of New York version of it (where they don't have those stories) then on that site you see an older lady. No, that lady doesn't look anything like my grandma -- my grandma is much smaller and much thinner for one thing. But if I were to "want" to identify her with one of my family members it "would have to be" my grandma -- I mean she is too old to be my mom and has wrong gender to be my dad. So I pictured a scenario where my grandma is living in New York and my dad is living in California, and each time I am getting rejected I am being sent to either my grandma or my dad, and they are trying to entertain me. Once again its totally not the case. In actuality my dad was back to Russia and my grandma was in California with my mom. But I wanted to picture it anyway.

Anyway, back to what we were discussing... Could it be that thats why people are illogical -- for the same exact reason as why my own story was equally illogical? Basically once either others or myself are thinking visually then they/me want to twist things to match the visual image to the point of making it illogical? And could it also be that other people "overfocusing on one detail while glossing over all the rest" is similar to the way I was overfocusing on a "detail" as to who exactly strangled Shuisky while glossing over everything else I just mentioned? In my case, the "detail" I was overfocusing was the one that would help me make a better visual image (match Nikolay to some historical figure) while the things I was glossing over were the things that would hinder the visual image I was trying to make (I didn't want to consider the possibility that he was shot rather than strangled because in my visual I pictured him being strangled). So are you saying that with women its the same thing. If something enhances their visual image -- like the word hide -- they would overfocus on it, but if something hinders it -- like my logical explanation -- they would gloss over it?

Last edited by QFT on 24 Sep 2020, 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would say that you just realized the brain and abstaction works. You are learning by creating connection between thing that you know and new experiences. That's why you were trying to connect the story with real life happenings. Such kind of things happens often during dreaming where the memories of the real life and of the story do mix just because it was both something that you were thinking about.

The same way learn visual thinkers what hiding it. Somebody hides and someone tells them the related word. Depending on the situation the brain creates an connection between the situation and the word so that the word recalls the picture in the brain but not regarding hiding something in the pockets but regarding somebody who hides be it because of anxiety or fun. Do you know the fairytale 'The Wolf and the Seven Young Goats' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_ ... oung_Goats | https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0 ... 1%8F%D1%82) ? It's very likely that little kids learn what hiding means when the hear that fairytale. Afterwards the picture of the hiding goats may remain in their brains their whole life. Could be she has imagined you as such an anxiously little goat. If the guy of her dreams was a strong leader than the pictures in her brain didn't match that.