Can you give me more examples of what irrational communication is from an Aspies perspective? I’ve tried adjusting my texts but maybe I’m pushing him away with texting.
Sometimes when I feel it’s going well he will just end it with “have a good night or “ I’m tired and going to bed. It feels like a blow off but sometimes he’s very engaged.
This and some of the messages on page two (e.g. 23, 29 (if there are no deletions)) suggest you're starting to see an outline of NT-ND communications issues.
I've tried a few times to address this with different people, but ultimately to no effect, so now I just push gently where there might be a result - you may be an example of that approach working
Generally I wouldn't try to contextualize my earlier post, but this is a good time - Saturday morning coffee, snow on the ground outside, and this is an excellent "displacement activity" for avoiding doing something productive like cleaning/tidying
So some general comments about some of the complexities of NT-standard M/F communication while dealing with something fundamentally simple: switching from friendly interactions to a potential "romantic" relationship.
* It's wildly asymmetrical. Women "never" (almost never) make the first move, and while they seem to imagine their "handkerchief-dropping" signals are a first move, they're generally not, even for NT's. For ND's they're probably not even visible.
* So NT men are forced to approach, and they get rejected a lot
. When the balance shifts, that game "ages out", and plenty of men just stop playing, because at a certain point they don't have
This isn't new BTW - it was equally true 50 years ago.
* The asymmetry provides many opportunities to "game the system". Not just by women, but in general they have more opportunities than men. That is correctly perceived as deliberate lying by ND males. We don't like it, but we can't do anything about it (see below)
So how does this affect Aspies
Aspies have a natural deficit in "reading" non-verbal, and contextually- and referentially-dependent written/verbal communication. For the topic we're discussing, the majority
of the open communication is "counter-factual", and the odds of the non-verbal part being honest is well below the threshold at which many Aspies will stop trying to interpret it.
For example, when I see what I call an "airline hostess smile" I just tune out and disengage. It's like seeing a headline in this pattern:
"Is <something counter-intuitive> actually true and about to affect everything?
The "Is" at the start and the question mark prove the answer is no. Don't click the link
This makes Aspies less effective at the "game" than an otherwise equivalent NT. It affects different people different ways of course - there are few general rules about Aspies.
But it definitely means we're more inclined to drop out of the game than NT's, and that in general we have a significantly higher "re-entry threshold" later on than NT's.
If you reflect on the advice everyone here has given, we're essentially trying to get you past the "automatic rejection" stage.
Here's a nice Gary Larsen cartoon to wrap up the introduction
The point, which is quite hard to convey to both NT's and
ND's, is that fully
bridging the communications gap requires the NT
to understand the way they
communicate almost perfectly.
We want you to remove all the counter-factual stuff. We can see
it, but we can't process it out (or at best it's very hard work).
can't see it because it's NT-normal - everyone else around you does the same things, which confirms (genuinely proves
) that your approach is the right one in your micro-culture.
This isn't a "problem" for NTs, and while ND's can "see" it, and it does affect us negatively, we lack the skills to address it.
So, after all that, I hope you'll see that my short post earlier is just an elaboration in what had already been said (correctly) by others: be hones
t; be direct; be concise; simplify
I'll add two more: choose clarity over emotional overtones; do not include anything to protect your ego - you need to accept (embrace) the risk and "cost" of rejection.
Those two are likely to change the semantics for an ND reader/hearer in ways you haven't anticipated.
Another personal example: "proactively defensive" content (the last ;point
) is a "no go" signal for me in almost every context. Even if it comes up well after initial contact. It indicates a categorical failure in mutual understanding, which is not a good foundation for a personal relationship.
There's one thing still open - the initial switch from neutral to personal, which seems to be blocking you.
One simple suggestion: you have two steps to navigate, not one: the primary switch, and "neutral to 'possibly romantic'"
You seem to be conflating the two. It appears to me that any communication that achieved this would be non-compliant with the conciseness directive.
Try drafting two texts to completion, one for each phase, assuming they'll start different discussions in sequence with a delay between them.
Then go back and reassess
The split may not be the best plan, but separating the messages may (should) help anyway.
Lastly - I'm not sure I'm the right person to discuss with you whether your crush is likely to be open to this kind of relationship. You may ask if you like.