A different version of "busy" excuse

Post Reply New Topic

Well, that is the one question that I very much "do" want the answer to, as I believe that this is the one underlying issue behind so many other issues. I suspect I would look at all the numerous stories I were dissecting in a totally different light once I answer this one thing.

Is there a way you could perhaps write whatever way it comes out and then clarify things if I get confused or misunderstand something?

I could try...

Okay, so one thing is that people are likely to be more comfortable talking about things, especially anything personal or things that have potential to become very personal, with people who they're already close with than with a stranger/potential new friend/potential partner. If you push too much or demand for too much detail before you're close enough, that will most likely upset people and make them not want to deal with you. Now, you might argue that if it's something you said or did, you'd be the best person talk about it with, but that's only half of the truth. If it's about something you did or said in the presence of another person or especially to another person, then it's just as much about them as it is about you. When people experience strong feelings, it's often easier to talk to someone who's not directly involved in it, especially if the feelings are negative. Plus, if the problem was something you did for example, you might want to focus on why you did it and why it's okay you did it, while the other person might want to talk about how it made them feel. If there is a fight or an argument, then at least at first people tend to focus on defending themselves (if they're the one assumed to have done wrong) and how they feel, so it's easier to talk to an outsider first who doesn't have personal involvement in the situation.

Another thing is that it's unlikely for one detail to ruin a potential friendship or a relationship, unless it's something that seriously clashes with their morals (they can't date anyone who isn't of the same religion, they don't date those with homophobia, don't want to be friends with LBGT people etc.) or in the case of romance, not so much with friendship, someone who clearly have something about their lifestyle that they couldn't share their life with (very strict/carefree about money, being very minimalist etc. things one could accept from a friend but couldn't handle as a part of their own every day life.) The problem is that tiny details can break the deal when there's a lot of them and they bile up. One way to prevent them from piling up would be for people to point them out when they see them, but the thing is, unless it's something that's directly against some place's rule, it's usually against social rules, against good manners, to point out such things, especially to the person's face and if there are other people around. So, asking someone to point out your mistakes when they spot them is also asking them to break social the rules they've been taught since childhood, and that's a lot to ask of someone you don't know well yet. People can talk about these details with their friends instead because that's socially appropriate (depending a bit on what they say, of course), and how they talk about them can wary. Some talk in order to went, some want peer support, some may want to find out if they're overreacting and the mistakes aren't all that big after all. Anyway, the point is that pointing out someone's mistake to their face tends not to be socially acceptable, and that's one reason why people don't do it and instead vent to their friends or ask them advice on how to handle such things in the future.

Another reason to not speak about what is wrong with the person in question is that, unless you know the person well, you can't be sure how they'll react to it. Worst case scenario, they could get violent. This is especially true when talking about men and women since, on average, men are physically stronger than women. Of course, once one learns to know that the other person is not violent (if they aren't), then this reason will cease to exist at some point, but the people need to learn to know each other first. Also note that even if one isn't violent, if they're very aggressive, like yelling a lot or throwing stuff, then it's reasonable to assume that they might be violent as well.

Anyway, that's part of it. I know there's at least one thing still missing, but I can't really put it in to words right now. Hopefully this helps at least a little.

Well, this seems to be an entirely different thing from "not having patience for irrelevant details". In this case, yes it is very much relevant: in fact relevant enough to be personal. Yet Kraftie says the issue is patience with details, which is completely different. I mean,

a) You don't have to go into details to ask something that is way too personal. I can think of a single sentence questions that are far too personal for most to handle

b) Too much details don't have to be personal: a professor can bore me in lecture with too much details, but I don't feel like my personal space is invaded that way

c) Too much details have to do with attention span. When something is too personal (or otherwise unpleasant) the attention span won't be the issue: upleasant feelings tend to catch people's attention thus expanding their attention span

Thats not to say that getting into people's personal space is any better (probably worse). I am just trying to classify what that is. Kraftie says the issue is attention span. You say the issue is personal space. What you say is a lot more compatible with that link I gave than what Kraftie says. So I guess based on that link I just shared I would say "I agree with you but I don't agree with Kraftie". The only issue is that you seemed to implicitly say you do agree with Kraftie. So I guess the next question is how do you reconcile your view with his, and especially his view with that link.

I guess I have one theory on how to answer this question, although I am not sure if that is what you are getting at. So the two things about my mother I find frustrating is that a) she asks me things that I find too personal b) she gets too much into details. And these two things do go hand in hand. Because if she were to ask me a general question, I would have a choice on how to answer it, and I would choose to answer in a way that won't reveal personal things. But when she asks me about all sorts of details, then it is a lot harder to evade answering them. For example, lets say she asks me whether I am making progress towards my disseration. Then I can say yes. BUt lets say she asks me what exactly did you do towards your dissertation specifically today. And then I am forced to say I didn't do anything. Or even here is another thing she does. Sometimes I talk to her on a phone and she asks me where am I talking from. And keep in mind she is in another state than me. So that feels intrusive because it is like her trying to control me. Or even lets forget about my mom and talk about cops. When cops try to get the truth out, they ask about details. So, again, that shows that getting at the details is a way of forcing people to reveal their personal information.

However, one reason why I question whether it is what Kraftie and others mean is the following. I was told that I am too detail-oriented even in the situations that have nothing to do with getting personal information out of the other person. Here are some examples:

a) Back in high school I kept asking composition teacher about a storyline of the things she gave the class to read which I couldn't follow (partly English problem, partly Asperger, partly didn't have time to prepare). She kept telling me I dwell on details too much and if only I stop dwelling on details I would follow

b) When I was doing my first ph.d. I kept asking my former advisor about the things in the string theory book he gave me to read. He kept telling me that I should stop dwelling on details so much since this keeps me from making progress. In his words, he said "you shouldn't care so much about factor of 2; why are you still on the same page?"

c) In relationships I was told the details I care about don't matter. For example, one phrase I remember was "you care about little things that don't even exist". And yes a lot of women told me that was the main reason they were ending things with me.

d) When I discuss my relationships with people other than those girls, I am told by neutral "third parties" that I focus on details too much

e) When on home glucose meter I got readings that fell on a pre-diabetes range yet the doctor didn't think I am pre-diabetic (based on official tests coming back normal) the doctor, too, said that my issue is that I worry about the details too much.

So you see how in all of those different situations it seems to be a general concensus to tell me that I focus on details too much. Yet in most of those examples said "details" don't involve anything personal about the other person. Instead it is about things like a storyline of some book, or string theory textbook, or my own health.

Or are you saying that the way it is "about the other person" is that I am forcing the other person to admit that they don't know the answer to my questions, which implies in their mind that they are a bad physicist (example b) or a bad doctor (example e)? Of course I weren't thinking of it this way: I didn't care about judging the person I was talking to, I only cared about myself getting whatever it is I wanted to get (whether it is undrstanding string theory book or getting peace of mind about my health). But are you saying that the other person misunderstood me as if I was judging them and then used "too much details" line as a means of protecting themselves?




I agree its "just as much about them as it is about me". So I think we should discuss *both* sides of the story. That still means that I can present mine, right? Just like they can present theirs. Yet they don't seem willing to listen to mine. And by the way they often don't say theirs either. They just shut me down and force me to guess. I find it super frustrating. I wish both me and them talked about both sides of the story.

By the way, one thing I was often told is that people think I won't listen to them anyway. I only want to say what I want to say. But thats not true. I am so much eager to listen to them that I can even dissect every little word they said months later.

As a matter of fact thats the other thing I was told that they find it frustrating I dissect every word they say. But didn't they notice a logical contradiction here? How can I "not listen" and "dissect every word" at the same time? Its logically impossible for these two things to occur at the same time. Yes, each of them is unpleasant. But that doesn't change the fact that they are logically incompatible. The fact that I dissect every word (as unpleasant as it might be) is a logical proof that I listen. I don't see how others don't get it.



Yes, but talking to the other person won't actually solve the root cause of bad feelings. Lets take me for example. As you know I have bad feelings plenty of time, and I vent about it plenty of time. If I vent about it and get a listening ear I feel better, yes. But "better" doesn't mean "good". I still feel bad about those feelings. But if I were to go to the source and talk TO that person about it, then I might reconcile with that person and actually feel good. So for me going to the actual person is the first choice. The only reason I don't do it is that they wouldn't. Thats why I don't understand why others don't operate that way.

I guess if I think about it further I can sort of answer my own question. There are examples of situations where I don't have guts to go to that person and so I talk about it online instead. But even in those situations, I kept wishing that that person herself were to come talk to me. So the bottom line is that one way or the other I do want to talk to the source (and whether I end up pestering the source about it or sitting quietly wishing the source were to come themselves is a different question). Yet those girls don't want to talk to the source. And thats why I don't understand it.



But, from my point of view, these two things are related. The reason what I did made them feel bad is because they interpretted the motives behind my action a certain way. So if I explain to them that my motives were something other than what they thought they were, this would logically make them feel differently.

In fact, this is the whole reason why I am so eager to explain myself. Because I feel like explaining myself would make the other person feel different.

Now, one might point out that the aspect in which I care about their feelings is rather selfish: I wouldn't be upset if they lost their job, I would only be upset if it is something related to me since they think badly of me as a person. But, again, this is a different topic. Fact remains: explaining myself changes their feelings. So yes I should learn about focusing on less selfish aspects of it. But still it would change their feelings woudln't it?



I agree that defending myself is the exact thing I am trying to do in those situations. But, again, I feel it is logically linked to making them feel better. If I successfully defend themselves, this means I convince them that I didn't have bad inentions. But if I convince them that I didn't have bad intentions, this would logically make them feel better. After all, I didin't do anything that affected their health, job or finances. The only thing I affected was their emotions. Emotions have to do with interpretation of my motives. So explaining to them that my motives were different than they appeared to be, would make them feel better. At least it seems that way.



What happened in my situation is that detail number 1 caused detail number 2, which caused detail number 3, which caused detail number 4, etc. So the other person sees ten different details, but I feel like I would "undo" all ten of them if only I could "undo" detail number 1. So that is what I keep trying to explain to them. And yes I do talk about all ten of those details: I have to do it in order to point out how they are all linked to detail number 1. But people don't usually have patience to listen to this. They just say "none of this is relevant its all a bunch of small details that don't matter". Which brings about that link I shared: if details don't matter, why is it they talk to their best friends about them?



Here is the thing though. The point of good manners is to be pleasant to the other person. But if I am saying I actually *prefer* they tell me those things, then this means it would be "more pleasant" towards me that they tell me. So then what would be the point of keeping up with "good manners" if doing so won't be pleasant towards me anyway?



As far as whether or not they are overreacting, this has everything to do with my motives. So in this case I would be the one who knows my own motives better: their friends can only guess.



I never got physically violent, only verbally. But I do see your point. I remember that when the women "did" tell me what they thought, it was a lot worse than what I would have guessed, so I got pretty verbally aggressive. Like one woman asked me if I have feelings because Sheldon from Big Bang Theory did not. As much as I thought I was social outcast, it would have never occurred to me people questioned whether I have feelings altogether, so I got pretty verbal with her about it.

Now, the only problem in her case was that she didn't seem to change my mind no matter how many times I told her she was wrong. But if the people were to share what they think AND be open to listening to my point of view, then I wouldn't be yelling at them nearly as much.



Can you try to remember what that is? It sounds important since you say "one" thing

Last edited by QFT on 19 Nov 2021, 12:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.

The thing is:

When you ask too many questions at the beginning of a relationship or correspondence, you seem adversarial, and potentially not a lot of fun to be with.

People want to have fun with people, not be put under a microscope by a person. They want to feel comfortable with a person, not feel like they have to defend themselves all the time.

Indeed, "personal space" in the metaphorical/figurative sense can be violated when one asks too many questions. I would agree with Fireblossom when it comes to the concept of "personal space," especially when it's not literal "personal space."

Advesorial in what way?

Because on my end of the line, the *only* thing I have against the other person is their (perceived) putdown against me. So my only intention is to defend myself. If I didn't feel like the other person puts me down, I wouldn't have anything "else" against them.

Do you think people understand this, or do you think they feel I am advesorial in ways other than this?

P.S. Remember you praised Fireblossom for her patience, thus implying I am using up everyone else's patience on this forum. But how am I being "advesorial" to people on this forum if I am discussing people they don't even know? Thats why I interpretted what you said as if you were only talking about attention span. Or am I missing something?

They don't know if you're adversarial or not.

They just perceive somebody asking questions, or making inquiries in an interrogative way, as potentially a person who might potentially be unpleasant.

Save the inquiries for later. And preface the inquiry with: "If you don't mind me asking...." Or: "that's interesting. Mind if I ask you a question?"

So I picked 3 even though it sounds pretty negative so sorry about. As soon as you said "are you talking about me to that guy" I think it was over because it gives off the impression of insecurity that NTs instinctively avoid. That combined with you being a guy put her off.

I've been dealing with all sorts of people most of my life, and this is what I think when they are being nice after you say something like I have Asperger's. A. They have no idea what that means, are generally uncomfortable, but are superficially nice to avoid confrontation. B. They are genuinely nice people, but they don't know you yet, and they want to avoid anything that sounds negative. Even if you're super smart, they're still going to be put off be a statement, I have Asperger's. C. They are nice, they maybe identify with what you are saying.

C is very rare in my opinion. I don't usually tell people about my Asperger's till I've known them for awhile. In this specific case I think it was B.

There's also a tendency for them to think when you say you have Asperger's that it is somehow an excuse for future behaviors that make them uncomfortable. It won't, if they're uncomfortable they're uncomfortable, and I've just grown to accept it.

Don't try to date waitresses at a school. Online dating is the best thing for me so far.

What Kraftie and I said don't contradict each other; what he said might be right on some situations and some of what I said might be right in some situations. People aren't some machines who work in one, logical way that one can learn; it's a case by case -kind of thing.



Ideally yes, but things don't always work that way, especially if someone got hurt. And if you're yelling or otherwise aggressive, it makes sense if people don't want to talk to you. They're likely afraid for their safety. They might not want to talk to you once you've calmed down, either, because they fear you'd just get aggressive again. I think people might be more willing to talk any misunderstandings out with you in the future if you weren't aggressive with them. If you feel like you can't help but yell 'cause you're feeling too emotional, you could say something like "I'm too emotional right now to discuss this in a civilized manner; can we talk about this later?" and if they agree then you can bring it up again when you feel like you can keep your aggression under control.

One reason they don't say theirs might, in some cases, be that they don't know how to explain it because to them and most people they know it's something obvious and they can't proceed the information that there is someone who it is not obvious to. You know, the difference between those on the spectrum and those who are not.



It's only impossible if the only meaning you know for the word "listen" is the literal one. But I don't think they meant the literal meaning. Another meaning for the word "listen" is to hear something and proceed to understand what it means. When they said that you didn't listen, they probably felt like you hadn't bothered to think about what they said because if you did, you'd understand them. But again, in reality the problem was probably that you both did literally listen to each other and tried to understand, but simply failed at it. They might have said that you didn't listen because they couldn't understand that someone could actually be unable to understand what they were telling them.



Nope. If you hurt someone and then focus on how you did nothing wrong, it comes across as (in my opinion, someone might think differently) you caring about being right more than you care about the person. And if you do care about being right more than you care about the person, then it's better to not let it show if you want to be friends with that person. First focus on making sure that the person is okay and apologize for hurting their feelings, say that you didn't meant it in a bad way, and only after things have cooled down try to explain what you actually meant.



Hmm let's say that you go up to an obese person and tell them to their face that they're ugly and fat. Do you think they'll be hurt by it? Most likely. Do you think the hurt will go away if you explain to them that the only reason you said it was that you're concerned about the health issues that being obese brings them? Most likely not. They might be a little less angry at you after that, but their feelings will remain hurt. Kinda like if you accidentally step on someone's toes and then say sorry; they will probably not be mad at you, but the pain will still be there. Get it?

And of course, the people may not always believe that you're telling the truth. Like the obese person from the example, they could be thinking that you're trying to make excuses after messing up so that you'd look like less of a jerk than what you've made yourself look like. The thing is, they can't know for sure if you're honest or not, just like you wouldn't know for sure if they were honest or not if you were hurt by something they said and they tried to explain why they said it.



That's from your point of view, but it's not just about you. It might be more pleasant for you, but less pleasant for them. Plus, manners are often about keeping up the routines and harmony of entire groups, not just about two people. Some might be afraid that if they make exceptions for one person, it could be easier for them to slip with other people who don't like being talked directly to.



It's not just about your motives. For example, there might be something in the person's past that you don't know about but her friends do that is related to the subject and thus affects how she reacts to certain things.



At least one thing. And it's not really about not remembering, more like not knowing how to put it.