If someone is rude to the waitress on a date

[Polchinski]

I keep reading a dating advice to break up with someone who is rude to the waitress on a date, and this makes my blood boil. Here is why. If you assume that the party that is breaking up doesn't personally know the waitress, it implies that everyone else should break up too. But, if so, that means that the person who is rude to the waitress should die single and childless.

Now, don't get me wrong: I am all for trying to change. But here is what gets me. People don't actually ask you to change. They simply leave. So if, instead of leaving, they were to say "in the future please don't be rude to the waitress", I am all for that. But they don't say that. They leave. So are they assuming the rude person will never change? If so, how is that person supposed to feel?

By the way, I can't think of any examples when I lost a date for being rude to the waitress (although I can't say it didn't happen, because a lot of people wouldn't tell their date why they lost interest, and yes I lost vast majority of the first dates, when I was lucky enough to have them). But here is the thing. I had plenty of examples of being judged "for something about me" that has nothing to do with anything "between" me and the person I am dating. And it felt damning. Because if it is something "between me and her", then the answer is find another girl who is more compatible. But if it is something "strictly about me and not about her" then its like nobody else should ever like me either so I should die single and childless.

I guess the rudeness to the waitress example is a good illustration of that. Because it has nothing to do with something that is "between the two people". Rather it is about "one" person (whoever was rude to the waitress). So the implication is that that one person would never find any other dates, or at least shouldn't. Wow. You see how damning it is!!!

Again, I am all FOR telling that person to change. But if you HONESTLY believe they can change, the logical conclusion is don't damp them. The underlying assumption behind dumping them is the idea that they can't change. How are they supposed to feel then?

 

[Metalhead]

I keep reading a dating advice to break up with someone who is rude to the waitress on a date, and this makes my blood boil. Here is why. If you assume that the party that is breaking up doesn't personally know the waitress, it implies that everyone else should break up too. But, if so, that means that the person who is rude to the waitress should die single and childless.

Now, don't get me wrong: I am all for trying to change. But here is what gets me. People don't actually ask you to change. They simply leave. So if, instead of leaving, they were to say "in the future please don't be rude to the waitress", I am all for that. But they don't say that. They leave. So are they assuming the rude person will never change? If so, how is that person supposed to feel?

By the way, I can't think of any examples when I lost a date for being rude to the waitress (although I can't say it didn't happen, because a lot of people wouldn't tell their date why they lost interest, and yes I lost vast majority of the first dates, when I was lucky enough to have them). But here is the thing. I had plenty of examples of being judged "for something about me" that has nothing to do with anything "between" me and the person I am dating. And it felt damning. Because if it is something "between me and her", then the answer is find another girl who is more compatible. But if it is something "strictly about me and not about her" then its like nobody else should ever like me either so I should die single and childless.

I guess the rudeness to the waitress example is a good illustration of that. Because it has nothing to do with something that is "between the two people". Rather it is about "one" person (whoever was rude to the waitress). So the implication is that that one person would never find any other dates, or at least shouldn't. Wow. You see how damning it is!!!

Again, I am all FOR telling that person to change. But if you HONESTLY believe they can change, the logical conclusion is don't damp them. The underlying assumption behind dumping them is the idea that they can't change. How are they supposed to feel then?

Many people never learn to change until their behavior causes them a significant amount of loss, though. That is where that point of view comes from and I assume it has to do with people in general, so taking it personally is not a good idea.

 

[Polchinski]

Many people never learn to change until their behavior causes them a significant amount of loss, though. That is where that point of view comes from and I assume it has to do with people in general, so taking it personally is not a good idea.

So, if it has to do with people in general, does it mean a significant proportion of population dies single and childless?

I mean, since we are talking about not being datable, then this is the ultimate implication of it.

I don't see myself as an asshole. I am pursuing my second Ph.D. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't believe in
sex before marriage. I am looking for a genuine connection with someone that is based on emotional support
and so forth. But then I do certain things that make me LOOK as if I am an asshole because of lack social awarenness. In other words what is inside doesn't match what is outside, because I don't have a mirror in front
of me and don't see what is on the outside. So if the person I appear to be doesn't match the person I see myself
as, I really wish I could have another chance or guidence.

 

[Darkkin]

Frankly anyone who is rude to those in service or retail industries, so called 'menial' workers, is a significant red flag. Being a reasonable human being is not hard.

Being rude or cruel is a very deliberate choice and if someone is willingly rude to a complete stranger, consider the potential for damage that can be done to those they're comfortable with...

The mindset of: 'This person knows me, they won't judge me, so I can act on this impulse to be deliberately rude or mean.'

It is a major factor in determining the health and viability of a relationship. How people treat the vulnerable and working populations can tell others a lot about someone's character.

Patterns repeat. And autistic brains excel at spotting patterns whether it is a certain type of behaviour or strings of numbers.

Being aware of certain behaviours and impulses is also significantly different than consciously addressing those behaviours and/or impulses.

Want a different outcome...consider that how we treat others matters.

 

[Polchinski]

Frankly anyone who is rude to those in service or retail industries, so called 'menial' workers, is a significant red flag.

Actually it didn't even occur to me that it has to do with the type of job they are doing. I just thought of waitress as "a random example of a random third party". Now, the fact that I haven't thought about their work underlines a bigger issue, which is lack of social awarenness, and that is exactly what Asperger is about.

Being rude or cruel is a very deliberate choice

To me it doesn't feel this way. Instead, it feels like one of those psychological tests. And it almost sounds as saying "answering a certain way on a psychological test is a very deliberate choice".

But maybe again it is lack of social awarenness due to Asperger. Because now that I am typing it, I am thinking "a waitress is a real person, why was I thinking of her as a psychological test". Yet it didn't occur right away. So again it shows lack of social awarenness due to Asperger.

In any case, here is why I still feel like its a test. Because of the following thing you wrote:

and if someone is willingly rude to a complete stranger, consider the potential for damage that can be done to those they're comfortable with...

The mindset of: 'This person knows me, they won't judge me, so I can act on this impulse to be deliberately rude or mean.'

So you are talking about "down the road". In other words, you are talking about the person's psychology.

Now, if that was a deliberate choice, why can't the person change their choice down the road?

But if they assume they can't, then its no longer a choice

And the very assumption that down the road the person will be the same is damning. I hate the thought that I would be the same way my whole life. I definitely want to change. Yet others are discouraging me from changing by telling me "Its impossible" through their behavior.

How people treat the vulnerable

I didn't even know that the waitress is the vulnerable! So you see how due to Asperger I simply lack social awarenness? Thats why I wish people could give me guidence instead of just deciding I am an asshole.

and working populations can tell others a lot about someone's character.

But the whole point is that I want to change my character. I don't want to be labelled as an asshole FOR LIFE. I want to CHANGE.

Patterns repeat.

And that is what is unfair. I want to change.

And autistic brains excel at spotting patterns while it is a certain type of behaviour or strings of numbers.

Are you talking about the scenario where its the NT who is rude to the waitress and its an autistic who rejected them?

Because I was thinking of the opposite scenario, when its autistic who is rude to the waitress and its NT who rejected them.

Because to me "rudeness to the waitress" and "autistic behavior" have one thing in common: they are both "red flags" that people are judged by, even though they did NOT do anything negative towards the person they are with. In both cases, the person observes a characteristic (whether it be autistic behavior OR rudeness to the waitress), decides that it is immutable, and decides the person is undatable.

 

[Metalhead]

Actually it didn't even occur to me that it has to do with the type of job they are doing. I just thought of waitress as "a random example of a random third party". Now, the fact that I haven't thought about their work underlines a bigger issue, which is lack of social awarenness, and that is exactly what Asperger is about.



To me it doesn't feel this way. Instead, it feels like one of those psychological tests. And it almost sounds as saying "answering a certain way on a psychological test is a very deliberate choice".

But maybe again it is lack of social awarenness due to Asperger. Because now that I am typing it, I am thinking "a waitress is a real person, why was I thinking of her as a psychological test". Yet it didn't occur right away. So again it shows lack of social awarenness due to Asperger.

In any case, here is why I still feel like its a test. Because of the following thing you wrote:



So you are talking about "down the road". In other words, you are talking about the person's psychology.

Now, if that was a deliberate choice, why can't the person change their choice down the road?

But if they assume they can't, then its no longer a choice

And the very assumption that down the road the person will be the same is damning. I hate the thought that I would be the same way my whole life. I definitely want to change. Yet others are discouraging me from changing by telling me "Its impossible" through their behavior.



I didn't even know that the waitress is the vulnerable! So you see how due to Asperger I simply lack social awarenness? Thats why I wish people could give me guidence instead of just deciding I am an asshole.


But the whole point is that I want to change my character. I don't want to be labelled as an asshole FOR LIFE. I want to CHANGE.



And that is what is unfair. I want to change.



Are you talking about the scenario where its the NT who is rude to the waitress and its an autistic who rejected them?

Because I was thinking of the opposite scenario, when its autistic who is rude to the waitress and its NT who rejected them.

Because to me "rudeness to the waitress" and "autistic behavior" have one thing in common: they are both "red flags" that people are judged by, even though they did NOT do anything negative towards the person they are with. In both cases, the person observes a characteristic (whether it be autistic behavior OR rudeness to the waitress), decides that it is immutable, and decides the person is undatable.

Many autistic people do not mistreat the help. Exactly what kind of people do you think most of us are? That is insulting.

 

[Crossbreed]

This may be TMI, but it is relevant, and also applies if the genders are reversed. When a man is enamored with a woman, he is on his best behavior and will mute those behaviors that might interfere with sexual success. Once he has orgasmed, he enters into what is called the refractory period. During that time, short or long, he will not be as sexually driven as he was when he was horny (until he is horny again). That dynamic becomes similar to his relationship to his mother or sister, and could foreshadow a relationship with a daughter, as well.

A waitress might be a jerk and a one-off, but if he is that way with most women for whom he has no sexual interest, that is a bad sign.

 

[Darkkin]

No one said anything about YOU or YOUR behaviour. Merely the topic of a hypothetical situation. This is also a reminder to keep it objective to the hypothetical. Take a step back and reread the post.

Members here have zero context of your IRL situations. That data belongs to YOU alone. Thusly, when someone posts a reply to an objective conversation they are not addressing YOU, they are addressing the TOPIC. There is a huge difference.

Certain behaviours are red flags. This is a factor a lot of people take into account.

Blaming shoddy behaviour on one's ASD is a relinquishment of personal accountability and responsibility. It is also a sign of emotional immaturity.

While ASD does come with a set of social deficits, it doesn't mean autistics are incapable of reasonable interactions and being rude to waitstaff is never reasonable behaviour for anyone. Period.

 

[Polchinski]

This may be TMI, but it is relevant, and also applies if the genders are reversed. When a man is enamored with a woman, he is on his best behavior and will mute those behaviors that might interfere with sexual success. Once he has orgasmed, he enters into what is called the refractory period. During that time, short or long, he will not be as sexually driven as he was when he was horny (until he is horny again). That dynamic becomes similar to his relationship to his mother or sister, and could foreshadow a relationship with a daughter, as well.

A waitress might be a jerk and a one-off, but if he is that way with most women for whom he has no sexual interest, that is a bad sign.

Here is the problem with this. She is judging him based on prediction, not the actual behavior. If she could judge him on actual behavior, then he could have challenged himself to "prove this theory wrong" and continue to be on best behavior with her even after sex -- despite "bad predictions". But if she judges him based on prediction, then it is like saying "you are doomed to do what this theory predicts you will do, you can't ever change". And this takes away any motivation he could have had to ever change: he was basically told he can't.

 

[Stuttermabolur]

Why do you feel the need to only change your behaviour if someone else flat out tells you to? You have agency to change your behaviour before looking for dates or friends to increase your chances and decrease frustration in the other person.

Consider the piece of advice you are referencing. You can either see it as an unfair condemnation, or you could see it as a learning opportunity. Now you have the chance to take the advice to heart and deliberately take care not to be rude to any waiters/waitresses, without anyone directly telling you to. Same with dressing up and keeping high standards of hygiene. You have had multiple people on the forums mention that it would likely increase your chances of getting a date, so there is no reason to wait for a woman/your mother to tell you this directly.

You talk a lot about how you want to change and not to be seen as an arsehole. Well, the best way to do that is to look up information on what people dislike or like in other people's behaviour, take the initiative and change how you engage with others and your environment. Of course it won't be simple, but the fact is that no matter how unfair you find it, no-one owes you an explanation so you'll need to consciously change how people perceive you by changing your behaviour.

This is something I did a few years ago. I used to be friendless like you and always just sat by myself while feeling sad about no-one approaching me, but then I changed my approach. I set about learning people's names, introduced myself to strangers and took part in volunteer work and other social activities, and now my social skills are a lot better.

Generally speaking, the less work people need to put into a relationship, the happier they are with it, and always pointing out problems and flaws in the other person's behaviour instead of them taking the initiative does take a lot of energy. You might see it as unfair, but that's how things are. Same with work, the less problems you give your boss and the easier you make their life, the happier they will be with you as a worker, even if other people are more hardworking.

 

[Darkkin]

Here is the problem with this. She is judging him based on prediction, not the actual behavior. If she could judge him on actual behavior, then he could have challenged himself to "prove this theory wrong" and continue to be on best behavior with her even after sex -- despite "bad predictions". But if she judges him based on prediction, then it is like saying "you are doomed to do what this theory predicts you will do, you can't ever change". And this takes away any motivation he could have had to ever change: he was basically told he can't.

Hypothetically there is no reasoning with an unmalleable mindset. People without motivation or drive can to devolve into self sabotaging patterns. Thusly, it is an easy out of double indemnity default of relinquished accountability. (Hypothetical is forever defined as H. When in actuality the only thing standing in Hypothetical's way is himself.)

Anyone who wants anything in life needs to put effort into it. That includes one's self. It means self reflection and conscious acknowledgement of faults (everyone has them). It means being aware of triggers and weaknesses and taking responsibility when one screws up. (Everyone does at some point. Those who cannot or will not...well, that is a different topic.)

Consider the theoretical perspective of assuming that an objective discussion is not objective, but specific to an individual. Imagine a flock of vultures around a carcass.

If this theoretical perspective were in any way accurate, it would be tantamount to a personal attack. A deliberate act of cruelty and aggression. In short, it would be bullying.

Is it reasonable to redirect to the facts, rather than condoning the fixed perspective? Are the facts reasonable? If not, how are they specifically directed at the theoretical perspective?

Basically, assumed cruelty is being assigned to others where there is no malicious intent. That assumption of preceived rejection is a root source for a need to lash out or hurt others before they can land a blow (be it verbal or physical), unnecessary rudeness is an example of this type of behaviour. This type of assumed rejection is one of the patterns that others can indentify.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

Many people never learn to change until their behavior causes them a significant amount of loss, though. That is where that point of view comes from and I assume it has to do with people in general, so taking it personally is not a good idea.

Amen, Brother! And that emotional loss was crippling. I felt unloved and unlovable, but I tucked away what I learned from people. That let me break out of my cage, twice. And I am happy with the me that my experiences created.

 

[Polchinski]

Amen, Brother! And that emotional loss was crippling. I felt unloved and unlovable, but I tucked away what I learned from people. That let me break out of my cage, twice. And I am happy with the me that my experiences created.

My experience was the opposite. The "loss" that I experienced 22 years ago set me downhill and caused me to ask all those questions instead of trying. If it wasn't for that loss, I would have been a better person.

 

[Polchinski]

Consider the piece of advice you are referencing. You can either see it as an unfair condemnation, or you could see it as a learning opportunity.

If its a learning opportunity, why wouldn't they stick around to see if the rude person had learned?

This is something I did a few years ago. I used to be friendless like you and always just sat by myself while feeling sad about no-one approaching me, but then I changed my approach. I set about learning people's names, introduced myself to strangers and took part in volunteer work and other social activities, and now my social skills are a lot better.

So your social group now, are they the people that didn't know you few years ago, or does it include the people who knew you? The reason I am asking is to see if the people that actually had a negative opinion of you, if they ever changed their minds.

Generally speaking, the less work people need to put into a relationship, the happier they are with it, and always pointing out problems and flaws in the other person's behaviour instead of them taking the initiative does take a lot of energy. You might see it as unfair, but that's how things are. Same with work, the less problems you give your boss and the easier you make their life, the happier they will be with you as a worker, even if other people are more hardworking.

Thats a good point. Continuing with your work analogy, I got student evaluations in 4-s and 5-s from last semester. Yet I lost that job. At the same time, their benchmark is between 1 and 2. So people with 2 average keep the job yet someone between 4 and 5 lost it. And yes, they did mention that they spent more time+effort on me than on anyone else.

So, back to the relationship thing. Could it be that the dates know I can change, they just feel it would be too much effort on their part? Just like in my teaching, I DID exceed the benchmark -- far more than need be -- but it was too much effort on them? Is this what it is about?

 

[Crossbreed]

Here is the problem with this. She is judging him based on prediction, not the actual behavior. If she could judge him on actual behavior, then he could have challenged himself to "prove this theory wrong" and continue to be on best behavior with her even after sex -- despite "bad predictions". But if she judges him based on prediction, then it is like saying "you are doomed to do what this theory predicts you will do, you can't ever change". And this takes away any motivation he could have had to ever change: he was basically told he can't.

Marriage-minded women are looking for men who can be husbands right out of the box, in attitude, if not in experience. More specifically, she is looking for her father.

Neither person can be expected to fix the other and inherent misogyny is very high-maintenance with very little promise of reciprocation.

You can still get a wife without dealing with misogynistic tendencies, but not an alert one.

 

[Polchinski]

Marriage-minded women are looking for men who can be husbands right out of the box, in attitude, if not in experience. More specifically, she is looking for her father.

If you mean father to her children, thats fair enough. If you mean father figure to her, I don't get that: we should be equal.

Neither person can be expected to fix the other and inherent misogyny is very high-maintenance with very little promise of reciprocation.

You can still get a wife without dealing with misogynistic tendencies, but not an alert one.

I get confused by the mysogyny thing too. Mysogyny means hatred of women. So, if I hated women, why would I want a female company?

If by mysogyny you meant waitress being a woman, then I could have said a waiter. I am not any more rude to one gender than the other. I just don't have social skills so I am rude to everybody.

 

[Stuttermabolur]

If its a learning opportunity, why wouldn't they stick around to see if the rude person had learned?

The point I am making is that the article is a learning opportunity for you, since you now have information you can apply to make a positive good impression. That way they won't see you as rude and need to spend effort helping you be less rude, since you are already applying what you have read to not come across as unpleasant.

So your social group now, are they the people that didn't know you few years ago, or does it include the people who knew you? The reason I am asking is to see if the people that actually had a negative opinion of you, if they ever changed their minds.

They are people that didn't know me a few years ago, though I hardly knew anybody back then. I deliberately placed myself in situations and joined activities where I knew I would meet new people, and then set out to make a positive first impression using what I had learned about how most people communicate. I deliberately introduced myself to strangers, had good hygiene standards and listened to what others were saying rather than talking over them (people love being listened to). Yes, it may be more difficult and deliberate if you are on the autism spectrum, but it is very possible, especially if you don't have sensory issues. You just need to put in the effort.

So, back to the relationship thing. Could it be that the dates know I can change, they just feel it would be too much effort on their part? Just like in my teaching, I DID exceed the benchmark -- far more than need be -- but it was too much effort on them? Is this what it is about?

I think it could be, but in general, I think most people rely in large part on instinct when it comes to communicating, which of course puts you at a disadvantage. That's why you should prepare well and make an effort to give a good first impression. They might not literally be thinking that it would be a lot of effort to teach you that stuff, but it might be an underlying reason for why they don't want to get in a relationship with you. It puts you at a disadvantage when they could potentially find someone already up to their standards who they wouldn't feel the need to put effort into helping.

 

[Polchinski]

They are people that didn't know me a few years ago,

Here is an experiment I suggest. Maybe you can go to the people who knew you a few years ago, and see if their mind has changed about you. Because people sticking with "unchangeable mind" is what drives me crazy.

Incidentally, have you watched the movie "Just Friends", where Chris Brandon was treated as fat even though he was no longer fat? Thats the sort of thing I am concerned about.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

You have agency

BINGO! I lost myself trying to please everybody. Reinforcing boundaries and regaining my AGENCY was HARD. Two years of many first dates before my first relationship, and when that failed, I was primed to recognize my future spouse by how exceptional she is - - - right now she is recycling an old family crib into headboards and footboards for our new beds, giving new meaning to "crib," and we each have half of that old crib.

BUT, on those dates I would be too embarrased to make anybody feel bad. I never felt entitled in such a destructive way to do anything but appreciate staff. It must be soul injuring to treat another cruelly.

(added) But I digress. I think there may be features in our emotional immaturity that prevent or delay recognition that we do have agency if we wish to develop it.

 

[Crossbreed]

If you mean father to her children, thats fair enough. If you mean father figure to her, I don't get that: we should be equal.

No, I mean that her father's demeanor toward her and her mother is the ideal that she is looking for.

So, if I hated women, why would I want a female company?

If it is misogyny, it would be due to sex drive.

I just don't have social skills so I am rude to everybody.

If it is not gender-specific, then no one could accuse you of misogyny. Then it would be a matter of being anti-social vs. being dys-social. An NT woman may not be able to tell the difference, but an ND woman should be able to.