• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

People are smarter than they say

Because you have the tendency to analyze everything so deeply, not a criticism, just an observation, it could be worth your while to ask more direct questions. Like what do we do to invite social interactions? Perhaps you can look for solutions to your problems instead of analyzing them so deeply and trying to place the blame on others. A forum is a great place to hear lived experiences, including successes.
 
It basically comes down to acting like a reasonable human being. It means being open to different outcomes instead of radiating an aura of negativity (pity parties, pouting, defeatist thinking...people can see it a mile away and most will avoid such behaviour).

So you just told me they "see it from the mile away". Yet some other people are telling me they can't read my mind. So which way is it?

Now, its true that what you said does NOT imply they should want to approach me. Quite the opposite in fact. But what I am saying is that your reasons as to why they don't approach me are "opposite" to the reasons some other people are telling me.

Let me show you how it is opposite.

Level 1 understading: Here is what someone does on the physical. I don't know why

Level 2 understanding: Apparently that person is upset that the group doesn't approach him

Level 3 understanding: Since he is upset about something he shouldn't be (see Level 2) he must be a negative person

Now, Level 3 is a level higher than Level 2. Because in order to say that the person is a jerk for being sad, you have to first know that he is sad. In other words, in order to have Level 3 understanding one has to first have Level 2 understanding.

Lets now put the responses i got so far into those categories.

When others are telling me that people don't know I want to interact, they basically are telling me that the group has Level 1 understanding.

When I am saying that they should read between the lines that I feel rejected and approach me, I am assuming they should have Level 2 understanding.

When you are telling me that they wouldn't want to interact with me because they "see from a mile away" (your words not mine) that I am being a jerk, you are assumign they have Level 3 understanding

So my disagreement with you is "in the opposite direction" to my disagreement with others. In your case, you are telling me that the group has higher level of understanding than I assume it does, while others are telling me that the group has lower level of understanding than I assume it does. So which way is it?
 
Missed the boat on the fact that my observations are objective to media provided. NOT YOU. It is a linear discussion. And the internet has not working context of YOU. Keep it objective.

Your assumption is that readers see YOU as the excluded guy. FALSE. Excluded guy is a satirical representation of unreasonable behaviour, not a realistic construct and is thusly, objective.

He is not the embodiment of a narrator. Consider if and when, outside of a cartoon has anyone ever seen another person walk away from a group at a range of say, six feet to scale, with their head thrown forward like that and in such an exaggerated stoop. Walk the length of a hallway like that. See how realistic or even feasible it is.

Literal translation of provided media is excluded caricature guy is close to having a hissy fit because an oblivious group of people is ignoring him. The provided media is overtly flawed and highly unrealistic. There is no tangible body language integration or even scale representation. There is zero indication of any awareness of the group that photoshopped exile guy is even in their reality. Reconciling the group with the individual is not possible on a logically level because of the unrealistic satire.

Watch a group of young adults (late teens to early twenties) in a real world setting. They are focused toward their group not their surroundings. They are often oblivious and often obstrusive to other groups and/or individuals. At no other point in an individual's life is the pack mentality more prevalent.
 
Last edited:
As you stated, without the caption, it is open to varied interpretations.

What I did was in mathematicians terms "proof by contradiction". The argument goes like this:

--- IF other people were right that my own behavior has varied interpretations, THEN the behavior of the person in the drawing would have varied interpretations too

--- We know that the behavior of the person in the drawing does NOT have have varied interpretations because stock photo is supposed to be "obvious to all"

--- Therefore, my behavior does NOT have varied interpretations either

As far as the second part of the argument, here is why I am saying it. Because the purpose of stock photo is the following. Lets say you want to present a picture of rejection. You look for a stock photo with that title and post it. Nobody, besides you, will see the title. But they should know at a glance thats what you talk about. Thats why that picture should be obvious without any words.
 
Missed the boat on the fact that my observations are objective to media provided. NOT YOU. It is a linear discussion. And the internet has not working context of YOU. Keep it objective.

I know I don't look "exactly" like that drawing (nobody looks that simplistic) but my behavior is pretty much along those lines.

Whose behavior is more extreme? Good question. Intuitively, I would say that guys is, cause I don't think my head is that far down. But then who knows. I am not very aware of how I come across on the outside and oftentimes the body language I do is stronger than the one I am aware of. So who knows.

But the point remains: what I am doing is the same concept as to what that guy is doing. If you were to ask which real world character would best fit that guy, it would be me.

Your assumption is that readers see YOU as the excluded guy. FALSE. Excluded guy is a satirical representation of unreasonable behaviour,

But that photo is not titled as "unreasonable behavior of one person" either. That photo titles it as the guy being excluded from the group, thus the title of the photo puts the blame on the group and not on that guy.

In terms of those three levels, the photo can be given the following titles

Level 1 title: Someone wants to be left alone

Level 2 title: Someone being rejected

Level 3 title: Someone acts like a jerk

So other responders would give it Level 1 title. I gave it Level 2 title. And you are giving it Level 3 title.

The person that gave it a title, happened to have given it Level 2 title, in agreement with me.

So the question is: if in case of that drawing the default position is to give it Level 2 title, why is it in case of my behavior it is either Level 1 or Level 3, and NOT Level 2?
 
I know I don't look "exactly" like that drawing (nobody looks that simplistic) but my behavior is pretty much along those lines.

Whose behavior is more extreme? Good question. Intuitively, I would say that guys is, cause I don't think my head is that far down. But then who knows. I am not very aware of how I come across on the outside and oftentimes the body language I do is stronger than the one I am aware of. So who knows.

But the point remains: what I am doing is the same concept as to what that guy is doing. If you were to ask which real world character would best fit that guy, it would be me.



But that photo is not titled as "unreasonable behavior" either. That photo titles it as the guy being excluded from the group, thus the title of the photo puts the blame on the group and not on that guy.

In terms of those three levels, the photo can be given the following titles

Level 1 title: Someone wants to be left alone

Level 2 title: Someone being rejected

Level 3 title: Someone acts like a jerk

So other responders would give it Level 1 title. I gave it Level 2 title. And you are giving it Level 3 title.

The person that gave it a title, happened to have given it Level 2 title, in agreement with me.

So the question is: if in case of that drawing the default position is to give it Level 2 title, why is it in case of my behavior it is either Level 1 or Level 3, and NOT Level 2?

Your scales are relevant only to your preceptions, not my opinion or observations. You keep failing to separate yourself from a media caricature. Basically, you are too close to saying that the provided media perfectly embodies your daily interactions. There is no objectivity and without objectivity there is no discussion.

Again, I have zero context of your behaviour and I am not limiting my preceptions of the provided media to a title, YOU literally ordered readers to ignore.

I'm saying the provided media is flawed to a point of being a satire. Your behaviour and preceptions are your own responsibility and are not part of the media under discussion. The only behaviour being discussed is that of the caricature. Your behaviour is not something that is up for discussion on the internet. It is not objective, nor is it fair to you as a person. Such critical analysis of the objectification of an individual's specific behaviour can amount to a personal attack and such action are neither right nor fair.

Keep the I and ME out of it. Give yourself some space to analyze a hypothetical situation.
 
Last edited:
--- We know that the behavior of the person in the drawing does NOT have have varied interpretations because stock photo is supposed to be "obvious to all"
False premise. “Supposed to be obvious to all” has no meaning. Just because it is supposed to be doesn’t mean it is, and obvious to all is nearly impossible. There is likely no such thing.
 
I look sad too. As a matter of fact, thats the other answer I am given: that I look sad and don't smile. In other words, I am told two separate things:

1) I look like I frown or even angry
2) I look like I wanted to be left alone

And yes, sometimes I am told both things by the same person (for example, my mother told me both of them).

But, if you put those two things together, then it would be the same thing the person on the drawing is doing. So if they could read between the lines in his case and decide the issue is rejection, why can't they see it in my case?
First of all, if you are using logic then you need to test both sides of the coin. Sit far away, don't smile, and don't encourage interactions. Then ask nicely to sit with a group, then sit down, smile, crack a bad joke, laugh. Then come back and tell us how it went. Because in the end, we are all test subjects in a ongoing test on this planet.

For the amount of time you spent dissecting all of your lack of interactions, you could spend time volunteering and making friends. The choice is yours in the end of how much time you chose to put into being approachable. Some of us are better at this then others. I was incredibly shy and socially backwards. It took forever for me to feel more comfortable. Here is an idea, go to a comedy club, and try standup open mike night. You then can go into the audience and ask for feedback, it's an incredibly brutal thing to do however, you may be able to get to the bottom of all your concerns.
 
Last edited:
A simple test...exactly mirror rejected guy's exaggerated stance. Walk around a public space.

Question 1. Is walking like this for any amount of time comfortable. Is standing like this comfortable? Is the observation this stance exaggerated reasonable?

Question 2. Have a friend or relative help with observation. If people are around, how are they reacting to the 'Hunch of Utter Dejection'? What is the most common reaction? Are people approaching to ask what is going on? If so, what questions are they asking?

Question 3. Answer only if there are people actively engaging in Question 2. Ask people why they came over. What are their reasons for approaching?

Question 4. If people are actively engaging with the 'Hunch of Utter Dejection' in a public space how is their behaviour in any way exclusionary?

This is the difference between reality and a satirical media image. People engage if their curiosity is piqued. Looking at a one dimesional representation it is very easy to dismiss the believability of the situation.

Looking at Subject A no objective observer is going to say, 'Oh, that is Person Q.' Just like a critique on a book is never supposed to be about the author. Objective discussion maintains distance between what is hypothetical and what is real.

Tools like this can help one decode certain behaviour patterns and make sense of a situation, but there is no hard and fast answer and life isn't limited to A. B. or C. A lot of learning comes as 20/20 hindsight.
 
Last edited:
I think people instinctually avoid people they see as different and look for like minded people. Also honest and blunt people, people with visible disabilites are often avoided.

Of course, if you try to make an effort to be kind, smile and act in a positive manner people will try to include you at least. But to an extent, in my experience.
You can't influence people's instinctual behavior. There will be people who hate you no matter how nice you act to them.
So i think you should act however you want, within the limits of being a civil human being.

Some people will always have a natural charisma that draws others to them. Others have an off putting aura. You can change how you present yourself but not everything about yourself. Just bc someone gives an off putting aura doesn't mean they aren't a nice person when you get to know them.
 
I think people instinctually avoid people they see as different and look for like minded people. Also honest and blunt people, people with visible disabilites are often avoided.
You see this a lot in young children when they interact with each other in kindergarten. It takes a really special person to reach out and not avoid someone who is different. And whilst it is heartbreaking to watch on the outside, it is unfortunately how people perceive others instinctively . You can also see this in other primates.

I think trying to look at this in a clinical and logical manner often leaves a lot of things unseen. You cannot fully predict human behavior. Some people who have an “off putting” aura may have someone who will ignore it, and reach out to them. I have had this experience myself when I am having bad days whilst others avoid. Some people will follow someone who is naturally positive but not everyone does that. It does not mean that someone is not a nice person in any of these scenarios.
 
I've worked frontside retail at a bookshop since undergrad. One of the skills I've honed is profiling people not only by their books, but by how they approach a check out line or the information desk.

You learn to keep an eye out for kids who may have wandered out of line of sight of a parent. You can spot the posers, the creeps, the odd ducks, the grumps, and a plethora of other archetypes.

But isn't this what Asperger all about: giving off the "vibes" that contradict your actual character and make you look worse than you really are?

I was always thinking that "judging people by their vibes" is something you just can't help. But now you are saying that it is actually a purposeful act, to the point that you were trained to do it. Why would you be trained to do something that is so unfair?

(Some of the biggest insights into people's natures come from small things. How they treat 'menial' employees at a store or restaurant. How they react to small children, pets, etc...or how pets and small children react to them.)

Incidentally, I noticed few times kids saying hi to me, sometimes even multiple times. I find it annoying because I feel like it just makes me look weird. No, I didn't respond in any kind of annoyed manner. Rather, I didn't respond at all. My theory is that I am a log younger than my age, which causes my social problems on the first place. Adults probably don't realize it. But kids perhaps pick up on it from my mannerisms or something.

However, even though kids react to me positively, lets talk about someone whom kids don't like. I think it is unfair to make negative judgement on someone, because someone else dislikes that person. It reminds me of how an individual NT would negatively judge individual aspie because other NT-s don't like that aspie. Its unfair because this is precisely what puts an aspie into the self-perpetuating cycle.


Next time you go to a store, watch how people walk down a central aisle. Do they yield to allow space for others or do they plow through...oblivious to everything but the group they're with? Things like this can tell you a lot about a person's potential actions.

The people who plow through and knock things of a table and don't stop. Sorry, but that is someone who is an oblivious jerk. Do you want to pursue further interaction. Nope. Good riddance.

In my case, I don't knock things off, yet my mom thinks I do. I have a very large backpack full of books, and my mom was telling me I might hit people with the backpack as I walk. But I feel like it is an assumption on her part and it might not be true. I do remember, however, at the airplane when my mom told me I just hit the flight attendant with my backpack. So I guess sometimes my mom might be right. But the question is how often.

One proof that my mom underestimates my coordination is the fact that she doesn't like when I put cup near the edge of a table, because supposedly I would knock it off. I never knocked it off in my life. Also, the other day she was thinking I would break the dishes because I was moving fast as I was putting them into washing machine. But the fact is: I never broke them.

I think my mom is projecting her own coordination issues, along with her assumptions about my Asperger, on me. Maybe SHE would knock out the cup if it was near the edge of the table or break dishes or whatever. But in my case, I don't even have to pay attention for none of those things to happen, it just never happens automatically. And with dishes, I just instinctively know what it takes for them to break, and no, moving them fast like I do is not it.

The other things she corrects me about the way I eat is that I eat fast, put a lot in my mouth, and then put the new spoon into my mouth before I swallowed the previous one. Also one of my legs points to the side, as if I am about to run away, and when I finish eating I get up while I am still chewing my food. She also used to point out that I eat with my mouth open, so I make those chewing sounds, and when I drink I enhale the water which makes the sound as well. She also sometimes notices that the food drips on my shirt when I eat. A few days ago I was eating while talking, and instead of paying attention to what I was saying, she was taking off bread crumbs from my shirt.

My mom also constantly corrects me the way I don't tuck in my shirt (she calls it "a tail" when the front of my shirt is tucked in while the back isn't), the way I don't tie my shoes, the way I don't brush my hair, and so forth. Most of those things even I can't remember. Because right now the list of things I just mentioned is pretty short. Yet, my mom would literally slow me down by half an hour when I am trying to get out of the house. So apparently the list of all the little things she corrects is a lot longer than I can remember.

Now, my mom stays in Berkeley. So when I am at all those other places I mentioned, nobody is correcting those things for me. Which I guess could be part of the reason I am ostracized more when I am away from Berkeley.

Now, going back to the things we talked about. I actually complained to my mom about girls crossing the street when I walk, and how I feel like they think I would sexually harass them (WHICH I WOULDN"T). My mom's answer was that sexual harassment is not an issue. What IS an issue, from her point of view, is that I constantly run and hit everything on my way, so they cross the street so that I wouldn't bump into them or hit them with a backpack.

Well, first of all, it is not true that I constantly run. It USED TO BE TRUE back when I was in high school, but its been over 20 years ago! I guess since I live in other states my mom doesn't get to see me that often. But still, I visit her every summer and winter break. So I am surprised that she still thinks I run, when I don't.

By the way, it also reminds me of both herself and some other people telling me I don't make eye contact. Because to me its only natural to look at someone when I talk, and no, unlike other aspies, I don't experience any discomfort when it comes to this. I am thinking people are simply assuming that "aspies don't make eye contact so I don't", which is kinda similar to my mom assuming that "I used to run along the streets back in high school so I still do it now".

But then again, its always possible that while my mom exaggerates some aspects of it she might be right in some points. For example, I was at the store the other day, and a man told me, rather rudely, to let him walk by, because my backpack wasn't letting him. Now, he was pretty rude, so I am sure a lot of other people think the same thing just won't tell. But I guess the question is how often does that happen? Because there were other times when my mom was telling me the same thing, yet I was sure she was wrong.

Again, though, the above example is about a store with very little space. But what if I walk down the street that has a lot of space, or walk in the university hallways that are quite wide, why would it be an issue there?

And going back to your other point. You said those kinds of people are jerks. But have you ever considered the possibility they might simply "not be aware", just like I am likely unaware of those kinds of things? Why would "being unaware of something" make the person a jerk? Particularly since you know how Asperger's makes people unaware.

The guy who steps aside to let a matriarchal group pass. This is a small unspoken courtesy.

I was assuming that the gender roles are no longer there, at least not in America.

Incidentally, when I am going into the elevator and there is a girl in front of me, I would purposely go in front of her, so that she knows I am not going to sexually harass her. That, plus also by going in front I am giving her a choice to either get into the elevator or not. But if she goes first, then she would be forced to share elevator with me since she would be too polite to tell me not to come.

When I complained to my mom how girls don't get into elevator with me, she again told me that sexual harassment is not the issue. Instead, she told me that they are probably upset with me that I cut in front of them. So I asked her "so lets say they think I am rude; are they assuming that the rude person would sexually harass them?" My mom said "no". Then I asked her "so then why would they not want to share elevator with a rude person, if they know he won't harass them?" My mom said "its just unpleasant".

Intuitively, I disagree with my mom. Because my own intuition tells me that in order not to come into an elevator with someone, the "sexual harassment" bit has to figure out somewhere. Maybe its because my mom came to America when she was in her 40-s while I came to America as a teen, so her mentality is more Russian and mine is more American.

However, I do remember an example, from the American bus rider, that seemed to have confirmed those gender roles. So I was getting into the bus, and the bus driver stops me from getting in, so I had to actually walk right out, even though I made first couple of steps. So I thought that the bus is about to take a break or something. But then she asked that girl to come in. So I asked why was she asking her to come in if I couldn't come in. She said women come first. Incidentally, this particular time I wasn't even cutting in front of her at all. I just happened to stand in front of her.
 
Your assumption is that readers see YOU as the excluded guy. FALSE. Excluded guy is a satirical representation of unreasonable behaviour, not a realistic construct and is thusly, objective.

The way in which excluded guy is NOT objective is that his LITERAL behavior does not imply wanting to be part of the group. He is looking away. So now you have two options:

Option 1: You can take it at a face value and say "since he is looking away, he doesn't want to be part of the group"

Option 2: You can read between the lines and say "he probably DOES want to be part of the group, and the reason he looks away is that he feels unwelcome"

In my case, one can also interpret my behavior in those two separate ways, hence the analogy.

One thing that would make you suggest that it is Option 2 rather than Option 1 in case of the drawing, is that the guy is not walking away. He is standing. So he is clearly waiting for something. Probably waiting to be talked to.

But in my case the same argument can apply, too.

Especially if you look at when Bible study is over. Why am I standing there for another 10 minutes instead of getting out of the room right away? Apparently I am waiting for someone to approach me, and nobody does.

Or before Bible study started. Why did I come 10 minutes early? Because I was hoping they would talk to me, and they don't.

Or what about other events, that are NOT about Bible study. Like the "welcome lunch" type of thing at the university. Why did I come to that welcome lunch? Probably for people to talk to me. Yet nobody sits at my table.
 
A simple test...exactly mirror rejected guy's exaggerated stance. Walk around a public space.

Question 1. Is walking like this for any amount of time comfortable. Is standing like this comfortable? Is the observation this stance exaggerated reasonable?

Question 2. Have a friend or relative help with observation. If people are around, how are they reacting to the 'Hunch of Utter Dejection'? What is the most common reaction? Are people approaching to ask what is going on? If so, what questions are they asking?

Question 3. Answer only if there are people actively engaging in Question 2. Ask people why they came over. What are their reasons for approaching?

Question 4. If people are actively engaging with the 'Hunch of Utter Dejection' in a public space how is their behaviour in any way exclusionary?

I guess implimenting it on practice would be difficult, because I won't be able to find willing participants for Question 2.

However, my mom once told me that she did Question 2 without my ever asking her. When she flew the airplane she purposely was looking busy and didn't greet whomever she was sitting with, just to confirm some of the things she was telling me before that. She said that nobody talked to her.

Now, I don't know how she was sitting and how closely it would resemble the way I sit. Nor do I know how she answered the rest of those questions. Its been few years ago, and she forgotten it I am sure, since she complains about her memory recently.

I don't think I can find anyone else to do this experiment for me, particularly since I don't have friends on the first place.

I have an idea though. What if some people on this board volunteer to do it, and tell me what happened?

Just like a critique on a book is never supposed to be about the author.

Actually I disagree with this. I think the more information the better.

You can try to purposely overlook something as a tool. But then you can come back and see what happens if you don't overlook it.
 
I think people instinctually avoid people they see as different and look for like minded people.

That is precisely what is unfair. Because it is out of my control, so its like what am I supposed to do? I don't want to stick with inferior status for the rest of my life.

Are they assuming that if you are different, you are less human? Thats how it feels like!

When I look at the groups of people, I feel like "they are just like me; yet they don't see that I am one of them, all because my outside distorts what is on my inside". It is a really painful feeling.

Of course, if you try to make an effort to be kind, smile and act in a positive manner people will try to include you at least.

Didn't happen with me.

But to an extent, in my experience.

So, in other words, no matter how nice you are, it doesn't matter because of WHO you are. You see how intrinsically unfair that is?

I am not upset at you by the way, I am upset at THEM. I just feel hurt that they view me as inferior.

You can't influence people's instinctual behavior.

Which is precisely what is unfair.

Some people will always have a natural charisma that draws others to them. Others have an off putting aura. You can change how you present yourself but not everything about yourself.

So you see how I have "off putting" charisma yet I can't change it. So people finding off-putting something I can't change is really humiliating.

Just bc someone gives an off putting aura doesn't mean they aren't a nice person when you get to know them.

I know I can still be a nice person, but that doesn't make me feel any better. Because how nice I am is my behavior, which I can change every day. But my charisma is my intrinsic worth, which I can't change. So if I am nice yet people choose not to associate with me, what it tells me is that I am worthless and so my behavior doesn't even matter. Thats a character assassination right there. And thats what hurts me so badly.
 
Sometimes you try to join a group and they reject you because you are ugly and weird and it makes them feel good and confident to reject someone. It's not that deep
 
But isn't this what Asperger all about: giving off the "vibes" that contradict your actual character and make you look worse than you really are?

We are not defined by our autism, it is merely our own unique operating system, in the most literal sense. (Autism is how our bodies physically process stimuli. It isn't a media stereotype.) By doing so, one cuts oneself off at the knees and then wonders why they can move forward.

And I never appear 'worse' than I am. I appear as I am and most folks don't seem to mind. A bit like a cat, I will tolerate people and interact on my terms.

But what it comes down to is the fact that I don't actively seek interaction from people. I am accountable for myself to myself. I find larger groups of people tiring in the extreme and work to avoid such encounters.

I'm not on the outside longing to be in...I have my own bubble that suits my introversion well. My ASD interface differs from yours and everyone else's. It doesn't have a 'vibe'.

I mask in public, but the major reason for that is not fear of social rejection, but to avoid intimidating others. People tend to wig out when they figure out that you're reasonably smart. It incites feeling on inadequacy and resentment in others.

(I don't want to deal with that drama so, I don't let people see what I can do.)
 
Last edited:
That is precisely what is unfair. Because it is out of my control, so its like what am I supposed to do? I don't want to stick with inferior status for the rest of my life.

Are they assuming that if you are different, you are less human? Thats how it feels like!

When I look at the groups of people, I feel like "they are just like me; yet they don't see that I am one of them, all because my outside distorts what is on my inside". It is a really painful feeling.



Didn't happen with me.



So, in other words, no matter how nice you are, it doesn't matter because of WHO you are. You see how intrinsically unfair that is?

I am not upset at you by the way, I am upset at THEM. I just feel hurt that they view me as inferior.



Which is precisely what is unfair.



So you see how I have "off putting" charisma yet I can't change it. So people finding off-putting something I can't change is really humiliating.



I know I can still be a nice person, but that doesn't make me feel any better. Because how nice I am is my behavior, which I can change every day. But my charisma is my intrinsic worth, which I can't change. So if I am nice yet people choose not to associate with me, what it tells me is that I am worthless and so my behavior doesn't even matter. Thats a character assassination right there. And thats what hurts me so badly.
I know it hurts and i am sorry you also experienced this. People can be unfair, but that doesn't mean every single person is like that.

This is not exclusive to autism. People who are born with visible disabilities/deformation or are not physically attractive are often treated worse than beautiful people too. People also care about physical appearance.

But just bc most people seem to reject you, doesn't mean you are worthless. Every person have value in the world regardless of how people treat them. What is important is how you choose to treat people in return. When i feel self hatred and self disgust bc of something i can't control, i always asked myself, is this how i would treat someone else in my position? Most often than not, i am a lot harder on myself than other people. I don't forgive myself for being unlikable, but when i think of someone else in my position i feel sympathy for them and feel the need to root for them. So i think that's how i should treat myself too.

Basically i think you should try to see yourself from an objective point of view. If you don't deliberately act in a rude/cruel manner there is no need to be cruel to yourself. Maybe you internalize other people's thoughts of you, but you are more than other people's opinions. You know yourself best, and other people don't. You have intrinsic value as a person regardless of other people's opinions
 
We are not defined by our autism, it is merely our own unique operating system, in the most literal sense. (Autism is how our bodies physically process stimuli. It isn't a media stereotype.)

Thats the claim that I was always confused about. Because I, for one, do not have sensory issues. Now, I was diagnosed under DSM 4, with Asperger, and DSM 4 criteria for Asperger doesn't even mention sensory issues. It is true though that there is "some proportion" of people with Asperger who have them. But it is also true that said proportion is smaller than the proportion of classical autistics. So clearly I am not the only one.

On the other hand, what IS part of criteria for Asperger is the problem in social skills. As a matter of fact, the very first thing on the list of DSM 4 criteria for Asperger is problems with body postures and other non-verbal form of communication. Yet this is precisely what you mentioned that you judge people by. Hence the question whether it leads to unfair judgement of people with Asperger's.
 
I know it hurts and i am sorry you also experienced this. People can be unfair, but that doesn't mean every single person is like that.

Your previous response reads as if thats the case. Although maybe you meant most people, but not all? So, putting it in mumbers, what percentage of population is like that? Would you say 90%, or 99% or 99.999%

This is not exclusive to autism. People who are born with visible disabilities/deformation or are not physically attractive are often treated worse than beautiful people too. People also care about physical appearance.

And that doesn't make it any more fair or less hurtful. Because the concept is the same. Basically, whoever is attractive is higher quality whoever is not attractive is lower quality. Now, what constitutes "Not attractive"? Is it just autism, or is it a list of several things? Thats a different question. But the problem is that I fall into that category so my worth is being destroyed.

But just bc most people seem to reject you, doesn't mean you are worthless.

Then why do they reject me? Is it because they are stupid so they all think I am worthless when in actuality I am not worthless? So should I say I am smarter than all of them, since I am the only one who can see that I am not worthless and I am right while they are all wrong? Or could it be, far more likely, that THEY are the ones who is right, and I am the one who is wrong? Since they are so sure of their judgement of me as worthless that they wouldn't even take time to test their assumption, they must be right. Since there is SOMETHING that makes them sure.

When i feel self hatred and self disgust bc of something i can't control, i always asked myself, is this how i would treat someone else in my position? Most often than not, i am a lot harder on myself than other people. I don't forgive myself for being unlikable, but when i think of someone else in my position i feel sympathy for them and feel the need to root for them. So i think that's how i should treat myself too.

I guess that would depend on what aspect of my situation they are similar to. If the aspect I am talking about is introversion, then yes, I tend to like introverts much better than extroverts. If the aspect is loud voice (I physically can't force my voice not to be loud) then I won't like them either. Now, when I picture myself, I usually picture the former and not the latter. Thats because I usually don't hear the volume of my voice. So I guess part of the issue is that the way I picture myself on the inside is different from how I look on the outside. Would I sympathize with the person I picture myself to be? Most likely. Would I sympathize with the person who looks the way I would see myself in the mirror? Probably not. But that just adds to my frustration. I feel like I am trapped in the wrong body and nobody gets to see who I really am.

But, back to your point. If I feel invalidated as a person by the way other treat me, then "what would I think of myself" becomes a lot less relevant because my own opinion no longer matters since I am now a loser. Besides,
don't everyone like themselves? Even if you ask hardcore criminal to evaluate themselves, they would probably evaluate themselves positively. What ultimately matters is to be positively acknowledged by others, and thats what I am missing.

Basically i think you should try to see yourself from an objective point of view. If you don't deliberately act in a rude/cruel manner there is no need to be cruel to yourself.

Sometimes I do become deliberately mean. But that is only due to the built up frustration that I have for beign ostracized that I eventually take out on others. So I am not mean just to be mean. I am mean because I am frustrated and don't know how to deal with built up frustration. And also I am not mean the whole time. Just on occasions when it gets especially bad.

But this brings up yet another issue. I remember some people having their mind made up about me because of some incidents in the past. But I can't change the past! If they were to say "in the future don't do it", thats good: I agree with that advice. I am all for changing in the future. But they don't care about encouraging me to change. Instead, they are simply "done". And thats what bothers me because that ultimately implies that they assume I will always be that way.

One example would be how last summer I told a girl I met on a dating site how I "punched" a guy during the dinner of the Bible study a year ago because I was frustrated nobody talked to me. And by the way I did so very lightly, and some people were telling me I should have used the word tapped rather than punched (but I don't think the word tapped would fit either since I used a fist rather than a hand, although lightly). Also, I only did it after holding my frustration in for half an hour. That, and I immediately felt bad about it and wanted to "undo" it (although my attempts to undo it basically reduced to whining) and hten I apologized to them afterowrds and they accepted my apology.

But anyway, the girl I told her this, decided to break up with me over it -- even though she doesn't even know anyone on that Bible study (she lives in another state and our relationship was long distance). Then, in attempt to keep her, I told her all of the above clarifications. This didn't help. She still broke up.

Now, its not really about that girl in particular, but more about what implications does her decision have on me as a person. In particular, look at the following line of reasoning:

1) Since that specific girl doesn't know people at the Bible study, she doesn't have any more reasons to reject me than any other girl. So, by that logic, any other girl would reject me too if I tell her what I did

2) Since its been 9 months between the incident and my telling her about it, this means that she assumed that I didn't change within those 9 months. But if I can't change within a year, then how would I change in 2 years, or 10 years? So she assumes I will never change

3) Putting 1 and 2 together, one concludes that none of the girls would ever date me in the future. Thus, I will die single and childless and not continue my progeny all because I punched someone

4) Not telling this to future girls is not the answer. Because the advice "don't tell" implies that the information is damning. If it wasn't, I would be able to tell, and then explain how I will change. The fact that I am adviced not to tell, implies that future girls would't date me if they know the full truth. Which again implies I am unredeemable.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that I shouldn't have done it, and I agree I shouldn't do it any more. But here is the thing. I can control the future, but I can't control the past. So when people judge me by the past, which I can't control, it feels almost the same as them judging me by my appearance, which I can't control either. And both of this are unfair.

So if I was told "in future don't do it", thats fair, I like that advice. But if I am told "do whatever you want, I am done " and I am told that because of what happened A YEAR AGO, that feels totally different.

Same goes with appearance. If I am told "go get better fitting clothes". Thats good, I can do it. But when they don't care about my clothes because they are DONE due to the clothes they see me wearing now, that is unfair.

Now, a lot of people would tell me "talk about your past with the therapist, and don't mention it to the girl you want to date". But here is the question: why not? I mean I WOULD tell the girl that I intend to change (and I told the girl I talked to last summer that much), so why wouldn't she believe me? The fact that I have to hide it implies that "the truth is damning, so I have to hide the truth in order for girl not to have that damning knowledge about me". Well, if so, then what am I supposed to feel about msyelf then?

And going back to what you were saying, whether I am nice or mean, it can change day by day, no need to hate myself for it. But if I am told "you will always be mean, and there is nothing you can do about it other than accept your fate of being mean for life", then how can I possibly not hate myself then?
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Top Bottom