• 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

Statement on "self-absorption"

Eric B

Well-Known Member
Hi all, again!
Was posting here years ago, but my attention shifted, and I fell away for a time.

But recently, I've been thinking about the topic of "self-absorption". A term leveled at me by my wife and others over the years, and also typically tagged on Aspies (or HFA's, as we're going by now), but, I now believe, largely unfairly.

All of man is naturally self-involved. It's the natural survival instinct. Autistics aren't “more” self-absorbed than neurotypicals. They just manifest their self-involvement in different ways than neurotypicals, so it stands out (and neurotypicals then see their own “shadow” [i.e. unconscious evil, in Jungian terminology] in them, which they don't recognize in their own selves. Hence, attribution-shifting; i.e. when we do it, it's different; we have a legitimate reason; if nothing else, it being 'normal'; think “everybody's doing it”). So neurotypicals have the same self-absorption, only collectivized. (This parallels the generational criticism, where older people call younger generations “me”-focused, where “back in their day“ it was more “we" focused. But that “we” still engaged in selfish, antisocial behavior to others, such as all the forms of discrimination, which are being challenged now. Each person in those older periods IDENTIFIED [there's “the big 'I'” of self-centeredness]), and usually stood to benefit from the social structures. So they were no less “me” centered, the “me” was only hidden among the “we”.


The background story of this realization:
The final straw with this "self-absorption" business was three years ago. Now, in my original intro Hi all! I mentioned a person online who I lost a friendship with. After that post, I did eventually manage to restore very limited contact months later, and the person was becoming less active online anyway. So forward four years ago, when I was having trouble on the job, in part due to diabetes, and she had studied to be a dietitian, so I figured that would be up her alley, being her field of interest for a change (instead of mine, as she occasionally complained). So For a few months we exchange off and on. (Even managed to engage a few rounds of Words With Friends for a while). I think we're doing fine, and even ask if I'm doing OK in communicating, and she even says I'm doing fine, and mentions understanding AS (as we were still calling it; her also studying some psychology). But suddenly, she complains nothing she said was "registering", and then wouldn't answer further. So I give it three months, an write and e-mail (especially given the great news that I got my blood sugar down considerably), and she writes an angry response cutting me off again, and calling me "VERY self-absorbed". She goes on about all the men who've harassed her, and how it made her sorry to be online. She had mentioned this before (including the first time cutting me off), but said back then she knew I wasn't doing the same thing the other men did (she was very shapely when she was doing YouTube, and so had that problem with them), but all so typical of the utter hypocrisy of just about everyone who criticized me (or just the "world" in general) doing the very same things they criticize me for, I think it was rather "self-absorbed" to go on her gripe about men, for that made it "all about her", when she was dealing with me who wasnt doing the same thing as them, and she still hadn't even told me what I did to annoy her; she just expected me to "get it", and since I didn't, that's what made me just like the other men. (she likely has DD-NOs, and seemed to have been becoming a totally new person anyway, so that's what I think the issue is).

Then, my ASD specialist blames it on me, for "missing cues", and not sending messages other than when I wanted something (I certainly wanted to communicate more, but she was rather quiet and not always responsive in those days, and I often feared I would be "bothering" her). I had to practically twist the counselor's arm to acknowledge the person's wrong (and then all she said was "what she did 'sucked'", and quickly went back to the CBT formula on me).

So it was right back to all the "counsel" I had gotten my whole life from my family, and basically, therapy didn't last long after that. This is what prompted me to try antidepressants Experience with Antidepressants, so my mother gave me $1000 to see a psychiatrist who specialized in ASD, and he found me a pill that seemed to have the least danger of side effects, and I got a bottle, but then we feared the job still giving me problems, and all of us panicking, my wife and mother discouraged me from taking them. When I told the psych, the only thing he could give me instead was to suggest vitamin L-Theanine, and other than that, just "meditation, exercize and CBT".
So it was
right back to square one (as always); right back to where I started with both the secular and religious "counsel". And that was it for therapy. (As for the person, I finally gave up, but felt better when I used to occasion of COVID to ask how she was doing, since she was almost totally inactive by that time. (And that was what I was supposedly doing so wrong; not asking how she was doing, etc.). So we closed on a more positive exchange, and I felt much better, allowing me to totally let go of her. But my wife still got annoyed that I contacted her then, after saying I was through when she cut me off the second time; and this just a few weeks ago now, when I first told her, TWO years after the fact!)
 
Welcome back, I hear what you are saying, but would also say, yes we kind of are all doing this, but it's therefore just a part of how people process the world and others. Use of language is our first entry into this, as we have to learn words to communicate with, that box us into forming categories and generalisations, inevitably. We learn to label ourselves and others.

Useful idea you point out about different ways of doing this standing out more, this again happens in many areas were there is a minority experience that is different from the majoritys'.

Having said that, it also doesn't help when feedback is given as criticism, as you have got hurt by the criticism and that can make feedback harder to acknowledge. A lot of feedback, especially in close relating, is the other saying, I personally find this that you do difficult, is there a way you can modify it? Mostly we can, if it's hard for them and we care about them.

Sometimes we can't or prefer not to, the reasons for this can be explored if the issues aren't made too tense with defensive criticisms. But mostly none of us are that competent in relating, insecure NTs and neurodiverse people alike. We all need to work on ourselves over the years. Sounds like you are doing that.
 
Hi all, again!
Was posting here years ago, but my attention shifted, and I fell away for a time.

But recently, I've been thinking about the topic of "self-absorption". A term leveled at me by my wife and others over the years, and also typically tagged on Aspies (or HFA's, as we're going by now), but, I now believe, largely unfairly.

All of man is naturally self-involved. It's the natural survival instinct. Autistics aren't “more” self-absorbed than neurotypicals. They just manifest their self-involvement in different ways than neurotypicals, so it stands out (and neurotypicals then see their own “shadow” [i.e. unconscious evil, in Jungian terminology] in them, which they don't recognize in their own selves. Hence, attribution-shifting; i.e. when we do it, it's different; we have a legitimate reason; if nothing else, it being 'normal'; think “everybody's doing it”). So neurotypicals have the same self-absorption, only collectivized. (This parallels the generational criticism, where older people call younger generations “me”-focused, where “back in their day“ it was more “we" focused. But that “we” still engaged in selfish, antisocial behavior to others, such as all the forms of discrimination, which are being challenged now. Each person in those older periods IDENTIFIED [there's “the big 'I'” of self-centeredness]), and usually stood to benefit from the social structures. So they were no less “me” centered, the “me” was only hidden among the “we”.


The background story of this realization:
The final straw with this "self-absorption" business was three years ago. Now, in my original intro Hi all! I mentioned a person online who I lost a friendship with. After that post, I did eventually manage to restore very limited contact months later, and the person was becoming less active online anyway. So forward four years ago, when I was having trouble on the job, in part due to diabetes, and she had studied to be a dietitian, so I figured that would be up her alley, being her field of interest for a change (instead of mine, as she occasionally complained). So For a few months we exchange off and on. (Even managed to engage a few rounds of Words With Friends for a while). I think we're doing fine, and even ask if I'm doing OK in communicating, and she even says I'm doing fine, and mentions understanding AS (as we were still calling it; her also studying some psychology). But suddenly, she complains nothing she said was "registering", and then wouldn't answer further. So I give it three months, an write and e-mail (especially given the great news that I got my blood sugar down considerably), and she writes an angry response cutting me off again, and calling me "VERY self-absorbed". She goes on about all the men who've harassed her, and how it made her sorry to be online. She had mentioned this before (including the first time cutting me off), but said back then she knew I wasn't doing the same thing the other men did (she was very shapely when she was doing YouTube, and so had that problem with them), but all so typical of the utter hypocrisy of just about everyone who criticized me (or just the "world" in general) doing the very same things they criticize me for, I think it was rather "self-absorbed" to go on her gripe about men, for that made it "all about her", when she was dealing with me who wasnt doing the same thing as them, and she still hadn't even told me what I did to annoy her; she just expected me to "get it", and since I didn't, that's what made me just like the other men. (she likely has DD-NOs, and seemed to have been becoming a totally new person anyway, so that's what I think the issue is).

Then, my ASD specialist blames it on me, for "missing cues", and not sending messages other than when I wanted something (I certainly wanted to communicate more, but she was rather quiet and not always responsive in those days, and I often feared I would be "bothering" her). I had to practically twist the counselor's arm to acknowledge the person's wrong (and then all she said was "what she did 'sucked'", and quickly went back to the CBT formula on me).

So it was right back to all the "counsel" I had gotten my whole life from my family, and basically, therapy didn't last long after that. This is what prompted me to try antidepressants Experience with Antidepressants, so my mother gave me $1000 to see a psychiatrist who specialized in ASD, and he found me a pill that seemed to have the least danger of side effects, and I got a bottle, but then we feared the job still giving me problems, and all of us panicking, my wife and mother discouraged me from taking them. When I told the psych, the only thing he could give me instead was to suggest vitamin L-Theanine, and other than that, just "meditation, exercize and CBT".
So it was
right back to square one (as always); right back to where I started with both the secular and religious "counsel". And that was it for therapy. (As for the person, I finally gave up, but felt better when I used to occasion of COVID to ask how she was doing, since she was almost totally inactive by that time. (And that was what I was supposedly doing so wrong; not asking how she was doing, etc.). So we closed on a more positive exchange, and I felt much better, allowing me to totally let go of her. But my wife still got annoyed that I contacted her then, after saying I was through when she cut me off the second time; and this just a few weeks ago now, when I first told her, TWO years after the fact!)

I understand where you're coming from but it's not an either or proposition as to self absorption NV v NT and you're not seeing the forest for the trees. She's telling you her needs in an improper manner, but it is the case nonetheless.

Humans absolutely have the potential to be self absorbed. There's no difference in any of us there. The only difference is whether they can see it or not and both are capable.

It's also a matter of priorities. My special interests are not, and will never be more important than my duties to my family. Especially my children. My daughter has been given carte blanche by me to redirect me in whatever way she sees fit to focus from desire to duty. It's usually a daddy. I need you and a touch. There's not much needed because she is my priority over everything including my life.

Even my wife as irritating as she can be with her inability to see her own bull and have her finger pointed everywhere but at herself.

On this question I must follow the wisdom of my beautiful child's sidewalk chalk art, who follows Christ without the religion and is a reflection of the child I was which grew into the man I was and who almost allowed the world to take it from me but for the grace of my daughter giving it back. "I will help others even if they can't help me back"

I simply will not give up on my wife no matter how much her childhood trauma tries to make me. I am her husband and am to help her see it and be the woman I know she is which is better than the dumpster fire of a household she grew up in
 
Last edited:
Well said, @Alaric593 , and also remember, it can look at bit like that for the other person too. We are all grated on by the other person's issues. You take a very good path through that, I think, hard to stay on, but absolutely well directed.
 
Self-absorbed is tricky. And being on the spectrum, I never am sure where the cut off mark is, like it falls into over-sharing. So l don't want to say anything, so then l just don't talk to people because l may be accused of this. Then you are labeled cold. I guess l don't like the double standard of self-absorbed. It's okay for you to listen to me, (power play), but l refuse to hear your *stuff*. Why, because l don't. Nothing more said. So to me it's the balance or slant of the power dynamics of a relationship.
 
Yeah nah if her only method of communicating that she needs help from you is berating you for not being as useful to her as emotional support as she expects that's just being a poor friend on her part. To me it sounds like a momentary frustration directed at you for her own failings to communicate clearly or perhaps she was never confronted with that demand before at all. Easily forgivable for sure, but definitely being in the wrong.
An ASD specialist giving someone the wrong for missing clues is also hilarious. "You wouldn't have been late to work if you used the stairs!" said the boss to his wheelchaired employee. Thanks for the feedback ey?

The more I hang out with my close friends and my less close professional acquaintances, who all communicate clearly and rationally, the less tolerance I start to have for people playing ego games because they're afraid of talking what they feel or don't even know what they want. It's normal and okay to have those issues, but if you make them someone else's problem and take no responsibility for your own poor attitude towards people as a result of them, then no thanks. You have to recognize you need sorting out before others can say "Okay I'll help you sort that out."
 
It feels like autism doesn't even give me a choice on how self absorbed I am. I just live in my own thoughts most of the time and don't think about anything.
 
I understand where you're coming from but it's not an either or proposition as to self absorption NV v NT and you're not seeing the forest for the trees. She's telling you her needs in an improper manner, but it is the case nonetheless.

Humans absolutely have the potential to be self absorbed. There's no difference in any of us there. The only difference is whether they can see it or not and both are capable.

It's also a matter of priorities. My special interests are not, and will never be more important than my duties to my family. Especially my children. My daughter has been given carte blanche by me to redirect me in whatever way she sees fit to focus from desire to duty. It's usually a daddy. I need you and a touch. There's not much needed because she is my priority over everything including my life.

Even my wife as irritating as she can be with her inability to see her own bull and have her finger pointed everywhere but at herself.

On this question I must follow the wisdom of my beautiful child's sidewalk chalk art, who follows Christ without the religion and is a reflection of the child I was which grew into the man I was and who almost allowed the world to take it from me but for the grace of my daughter giving it back. "I will help others even if they can't help me back"

I simply will not give up on my wife no matter how much her childhood trauma tries to make me. I am her husband and am to help her see it and be the woman I know she is which is better than the dumpster fire of a household she grew up in

I relate a lot to this. My wife grew up in a traumatic environment, and although I love her, I do see she has very much a self-absorbed side. So, I need to be the hero in the relationship and do whatever I have to do for the children too, when her priorities often are elsewhere. I am an optimist there and keep holding out some hope for some things to change. If not, at least I will have tried my best there and shown her another side to what a family should be about, something that her mom and dad were clueless about.
 
I feel like you are conflating "self-absorbed" and "self-interested". I don't think people on the spectrum are any more or less self interested than the rest of the people on the planet. Ultimately we all have a reason for what we do, and most of it benefits us in some way, even if just by making us feel good. So no, I don't think people on the spectrum engage in any more "selfish, antisocial behaviour" than others.

However, when it comes to "self-absorption", I do think there is on average more self-absorption when it comes to us. It's not for nothing "autism" (self) is the word used in modern medical textbooks. We tend not to focus on others opinions, or let them influence us subconsciously. When we are following others or studying them, we do it actively, because we feel a reason to, while for most people not on the spectrum it is much more passive. They respond and engage with others "by instinct", while a lot of autists are perfectly happy being self absorbed in their interests without a care for how others view them (especially as children). In fact, we can even become upset or aggressive when people come between us and our wishes for (seemingly) no reason.

In the example you gave, I don't think you were being self-interested (in fact, you sound quite caring and respectful). However, I can see why someone would call you self-absorbed. Keep in mind that other people's brains work differently from ours, and so they don't necessarily want the same things. This was a very harsh lesson for me in my previous relationship. I kept treating my girlfriend as how I would like to be treated (being respectful, giving her space, not making demands of her), but this was not at all how she wanted to be treated which entailed spontaneity, surprises and a hint of mischievousness. In trying to be careful and respecting others, we can come across like we don't care about them (i.e. self absorbed), even though it couldn't be further from the truth.
 
Hi all, again!
Was posting here years ago, but my attention shifted, and I fell away for a time.

But recently, I've been thinking about the topic of "self-absorption". A term leveled at me by my wife and others over the years, and also typically tagged on Aspies (or HFA's, as we're going by now), but, I now believe, largely unfairly...

Based on my experience, when several people say someone is self-absorbed they are always correct. I've met several autistic people in real life and most of them were very self-absorbed. Some of them were so self-centered that they were completely oblivious to the needs and desires of people around them. Of course, non-autistic people can also be self-absorbed but I don't see it as often and is mostly limited to ones who have mental problems. Regardless of whether they are autistic, I avoid them because it's impossible to feel better around people who are so focused on themselves that they refuse to pay attention and listen to other people.

If your wife says you're self-absorbed, she's probably right. Instead of making excuses for it, projecting, or trying to rationalize it, I recommend high quality CBT to learn how to quit living in your head and start paying attention to the world around you. Being emotionally unavailable due to being self-absorbed almost guarantees your marriage will end in divorce unless you get therapy or take steps to overcome it because no one wants to live with someone who doesn't pay attention to them or show that they care about them.
 
Put two self-absorbed people together, it's excruciating torture. Like l want your self-absorbed being, but you are to self-absorbed to see this. Lol
 
I feel like you are conflating "self-absorbed" and "self-interested". I don't think people on the spectrum are any more or less self interested than the rest of the people on the planet. Ultimately we all have a reason for what we do, and most of it benefits us in some way, even if just by making us feel good. So no, I don't think people on the spectrum engage in any more "selfish, antisocial behaviour" than others.

However, when it comes to "self-absorption", I do think there is on average more self-absorption when it comes to us. It's not for nothing "autism" (self) is the word used in modern medical textbooks. We tend not to focus on others opinions, or let them influence us subconsciously. When we are following others or studying them, we do it actively, because we feel a reason to, while for most people not on the spectrum it is much more passive. They respond and engage with others "by instinct", while a lot of autists are perfectly happy being self absorbed in their interests without a care for how others view them (especially as children). In fact, we can even become upset or aggressive when people come between us and our wishes for (seemingly) no reason.

In the example you gave, I don't think you were being self-interested (in fact, you sound quite caring and respectful). However, I can see why someone would call you self-absorbed. Keep in mind that other people's brains work differently from ours, and so they don't necessarily want the same things. This was a very harsh lesson for me in my previous relationship. I kept treating my girlfriend as how I would like to be treated (being respectful, giving her space, not making demands of her), but this was not at all how she wanted to be treated which entailed spontaneity, surprises and a hint of mischievousness. In trying to be careful and respecting others, we can come across like we don't care about them (i.e. self absorbed), even though it couldn't be further from the truth.

Another variation of the term I should have mentioned, but forgot at the moment, was "self-involved". The way I've seen it used, it seems to be synonymous with "self-absorbed", but I'm sure there are some distinctions.

Still, both terms have been turned into these negative labels people shoot out in anger; binding it with a judgment of not "caring", being respectful, etc. as you said), while "self-interest" sounds more "natural", and even "instinctual" (again, as you said), which is basically neutral. Hence, a problem of attribution. Again, like "when we do something self-serving, trample on your wants, feelings, etc., it's different; its OK, natural, we can't help it, etc." (no matter how many people we hurt), and the one I always used to get, "that's just the way people are" (while browbeating you for every little mistake you make).

Based on my experience, when several people say someone is self-absorbed they are always correct. I've met several autistic people in real life and most of them were very self-absorbed.
It sounds like you're not on the spectrum. Might I be correct?

Some of them were so self-centered that they were completely oblivious to the needs and desires of people around them. Of course, non-autistic people can also be self-absorbed but I don't see it as often and is mostly limited to ones who have mental problems. Regardless of whether they are autistic, I avoid them because it's impossible to feel better around people who are so focused on themselves that they refuse to pay attention and listen to other people.

If your wife says you're self-absorbed, she's probably right. Instead of making excuses for it, projecting, or trying to rationalize it, I recommend high quality CBT to learn how to quit living in your head and start paying attention to the world around you. Being emotionally unavailable due to being self-absorbed almost guarantees your marriage will end in divorce unless you get therapy or take steps to overcome it because no one wants to live with someone who doesn't pay attention to them or show that they care about them.
It's not an excuse. I'm seeing legitimate double standards with often, gross "attribution errors", and over a half-century of this for me is just totally confusing and deeply irritating! If anything, it's the NT world that's making excuses, such as the ones discussed above by a few of us. The excuse boiling down to "normalcy". It's not really how selfish/self-interested/self-involved, etc. one actually is, or the effects it has on others (even whole nations; look at national and world events). That, again, can just be chalked up to "the way the world is". So it's about what the majority of people do making something "right". "Might makes right", and in this case, "might" being the sheer number of people who agree with you.

And I think there are a lot more people in the "mental illness" category you mention than we may realize, who are able to pass off as "normal", and again, their behavior ends up accepted (at least by many people around them), and yet it's the "neurodiverse" that's a totally separate category, and generally not accepted, and thus are the ones who always need to change. BPP and NPD are big ones I see applied to people like this. They end up on the "NT" side, as opposed to us, who end up often judged by their influence on social standards!
That, I believe explains a lot of the disparity I am describing here! (Forgive me for the political reference, but look at our last president! Or the one in Russia now, along with every other dictator in history).

As for CBT, as for as I've seen, Knower of Nothing nailed it:
An ASD specialist giving someone the wrong for missing clues is also hilarious. "You wouldn't have been late to work if you used the stairs!" said the boss to his wheelchaired employee. Thanks for the feedback ey?
Yes, we have problems others don't have (and the majority of it is fitting in to a neurotypical world that often has a herd mentality; not that we are SO much more the generalizations you gave than anyone else. But like in so many other issues in the world, now standing up for their rights to exist, (LGBT, reces, etc), there seems to be too much of a push to change people. ("Masking" and "camouflaging' are the terms for when we're trying to fit in. I forget at the moment the term for when others try to change us). I call it "inertia", where we all have resistance to non-selfimposed change of trajectory (both moving when you're at rest, and stopping when you're in motion, as well as changing course), and as Aspychata pointed out, there is a definite power dynamic to it. (People who have played the social/political environment well enough, often by appearing to "consider others" —everything the lowly "autist" fails to do; and often perceived as "earning" the "right" to their unmoderated self-interest, even if it involves stepping on others). Whoever falls out of step with this, is expected to accept being bopped and slung around by more powerful people (think comets, planets, etc.), and if he doesn't like it, it's all his fault for not applying enough energy in getting with the flow.

Even the whole "here is your toolkit" premise the therapist used, when looking back, came off as "you're deficient, and here's how you can become more like the NT's". The whole "thoughts > feelings > actions" formula sounds too mechanical, and assumes just "thinking" can solve everything. (Like some sort of "mind over matter" philosophy). Every "right thought" I was fed I already knew; the issue was what to do at the moment when the nasty emotions have already come up in reaction to something. Sometimes, an issue gets to the point that the "thinking" just doesn't do anything. Like try to mentally control yelling when your hand or foot get hit with a heavy object. The whole therapy experience in the end negated the whole foundation of autism involving hypersensitivity to sensations, of which emotions are apart of. They just reiterated the "rules" of common NT "self-help", and here's your "toolkit" to help with your weakness. Why should I have paid all that money when I could have just listened to my father and others who said essentially the same things, if I had been able to just will myself to NT thinking?

So again, my point here is that judgments such as "self-absorbed/involved", while having grains of truth, have become a bit lopsided, the way they're being used.
 
Last edited:
Yeah nah if her only method of communicating that she needs help from you is berating you for not being as useful to her as emotional support as she expects that's just being a poor friend on her part. To me it sounds like a momentary frustration directed at you for her own failings to communicate clearly or perhaps she was never confronted with that demand before at all. Easily forgivable for sure, but definitely being in the wrong.

The more I hang out with my close friends and my less close professional acquaintances, who all communicate clearly and rationally, the less tolerance I start to have for people playing ego games because they're afraid of talking what they feel or don't even know what they want. It's normal and okay to have those issues, but if you make them someone else's problem and take no responsibility for your own poor attitude towards people as a result of them, then no thanks. You have to recognize you need sorting out before others can say "Okay I'll help you sort that out."
Yeah, as I said, the person (admittedly) apparently has DD-NOS, and perhaps other stuff like Borderline, etc. so that will figure in it. Also, with MBTI typology (which we have threads on, if anyone doesn't know what it's about); she's an ENTJ, while I'm INTP. The two types are similar in some ways, but suffice it to say, NTJ's expect people to "get" very subtle cues, which is the way they perceive things, while NP's tend to need things "spelled" out. When she tried moving to the NYC area once, her "clue" to her viewers was wearing a shirt with her hometown baseball team. We were supposed to connect that to NYC (perhaps because we have a "farm team" down there?), and then she admitted she was terrible at giving clues.
So the types will be drawn to similar discussions (as we were) because of the common intuition and thinking, but those two functions are oriented differently, so they often "miss" each other.

This is another instance of where type theory (dismissed and often maligned by larger psychology), helps people understand why we perceive and judge things differently, instead of slapping labels such as "self-absorbed" on certain people, like "We're up to par socially, and you're not", which is a natural human tendency.
 
Another variation of the term I should have mentioned, but forgot at the moment, was "self-involved". The way I've seen it used, it seems to be synonymous with "self-absorbed", but I'm sure there are some distinctions.

Still, both terms have been turned into these negative labels people shoot out in anger; binding it with a judgment of not "caring", being respectful, etc. as you said), while "self-interest" sounds more "natural", and even "instinctual" (again, as you said), which is basically neutral. Hence, a problem of attribution. Again, like "when we do something self-serving, trample on your wants, feelings, etc., it's different; its OK, natural, we can't help it, etc." (no matter how many people we hurt), and the one I always used to get, "that's just the way people are" (while browbeating you for every little mistake you make).

It sounds like you're not on the spectrum. Might I be correct?


It's not an excuse. I'm seeing legitimate double standards with often, gross "attribution errors", and over a half-century of this for me is just totally confusing and deeply irritating! If anything, it's the NT world that's making excuses, such as the ones discussed above by a few of us. The excuse boiling down to "normalcy". It's not really how selfish/self-interested/self-involved, etc. one actually is, or the effects it has on others (even whole nations; look at national and world events). That, again, can just be chalked up to "the way the world is". So it's about what the majority of people do making something "right". "Might makes right", and in this case, "might" being the sheer number of people who agree with you.

And I think there are a lot more people in the "mental illness" category you mention than we may realize, who are able to pass off as "normal", and again, their behavior ends up accepted (at least by many people around them), and yet it's the "neurodiverse" that's a totally separate category, and generally not accepted, and thus are the ones who always need to change. BPP and NPD are big ones I see applied to people like this. They end up on the "NT" side, as opposed to us, who end up often judged by their influence on social standards!
That, I believe explains a lot of the disparity I am describing here! (Forgive me for the political reference, but look at our last president! Or the one in Russia now, along with every other dictator in history).

As for CBT, as for as I've seen, Knower of Nothing nailed it:

Yes, we have problems others don't have (and the majority of it is fitting in to a neurotypical world that often has a herd mentality; not that we are SO much more the generalizations you gave than anyone else. But like in so many other issues in the world, now standing up for their rights to exist, (LGBT, reces, etc), there seems to be too much of a push to change people. ("Masking" and "camouflaging' are the terms for when we're trying to fit in. I forget at the moment the term for when others try to change us). I call it "inertia", where we all have resistance to non-selfimposed change of trajectory (both moving when you're at rest, and stopping when you're in motion, as well as changing course), and as Aspychata pointed out, there is a definite power dynamic to it. (People who have played the social/political environment well enough, often by appearing to "consider others" —everything the lowly "autist" fails to do; and often perceived as "earning" the "right" to their unmoderated self-interest, even if it involves stepping on others). Whoever falls out of step with this, is expected to accept being bopped and slung around by more powerful people (think comets, planets, etc.), and if he doesn't like it, it's all his fault for not applying enough energy in getting with the flow.

Even the whole "here is your toolkit" premise the therapist used, when looking back, came off as "you're deficient, and here's how you can become more like the NT's". The whole "thoughts > feelings > actions" formula sounds too mechanical, and assumes just "thinking" can solve everything. (Like some sort of "mind over matter" philosophy). Every "right thought" I was fed I already knew; the issue was what to do at the moment when the nasty emotions have already come up in reaction to something. Sometimes, an issue gets to the point that the "thinking" just doesn't do anything. Like try to mentally control yelling when your hand or foot get hit with a heavy object. The whole therapy experience in the end negated the whole foundation of autism involving hypersensitivity to sensations, of which emotions are apart of. They just reiterated the "rules" of common NT "self-help", and here's your "toolkit" to help with your weakness. Why should I have paid all that money when I could have just listened to my father and others who said essentially the same things, if I had been able to just will myself to NT thinking?

So again, my point here is that judgments such as "self-absorbed/involved", while having grains of truth, have become a bit lopsided, the way they're being used.

I responded to your post because I used to think the same way you do now and feel much better after I changed the way I think. A negative attribution bias caused by a habit of thinking negatively caused me to form negative opinions of people. That resulted in me feeling attacked for being autistic and getting defensive when people said something negative about me. Focusing on myself reinforced other people's opinions that I was self-absorbed. Many people disliked me and avoided because of it.

After years of resisting, I eventually taught myself CBT online for free and read books about emotional intelligence which helped me think more positively and understand people better. Now that I understand people better and focus on their intent when they say something negative, people like me more and I'm happier because of it.

If I were in your situation now, I'd be thankful someone brought one of my weaknesses to my attention so I could become aware of it and work to become a better person so that people would like me more and feel better around me. Someone pointing out my weaknesses wouldn't bother me at all since no one is perfect and I want to be the best person I can be.

Here's a little bit of what I learned:
Most people want to get along and have positive interactions with people because it helps them feel better. Therefore, people normally don't say anything negative unless someone's behavior is adversely affecting them. Their goal isn't to criticize or judge but to improve the relationship by making the other person aware of how their behavior is affecting them in the hope that they will change it.

Reading books to improve my emotional intelligence helped me understand that people need to feel appreciated, validated, understood, and respected. If you don't pay attention to how people are feeling or don't share in their emotional experiences, they will feel like you don't understand or appreciate them and see you as aloof, distant, or self-absorbed because of it. If you get defensive when people say something negative about you and tell them it isn't true, you are invalidating their feelings which will harm your relationship. If you don't agree, it's better to discuss it instead of getting defensive. Asking questions such as "What do you mean when you say I'm self-absorbed? or "What would you like me to do differently?" would show you think their feelings are valid and that you're open to change to improve your relationship.

Understanding and recognizing the importance of meeting people's needs and getting into a habit of thinking positively resulted in my brain naturally paying more attention to social and emotional cues that I was oblivious to in the past which made me less seem less aloof, distant, and self-absorbed.
 
Last edited:
This shows exactly the disparity I was talking about. It starts with the apparent assumption that the NT's are "always right". That's practically what you said last time (and I should have addressed, in addition to the autist's behavior by itself that leads to divorce). We're being made responsible for everything!

So we're incorrect to feel "attacked", and get defensive. Yet everyone gets defensive and feels attacked at times, including by an autist. When we do something (often some "little thing") that makes others feel defensive, or attacked, or anything else, we're wrong, but when we feel defensive or attacked (whether for their retaliation toward whatever we've done, or otherwise), we're wrong. And not only that, but [further] making them feel defensive, and proving their opinions of us being "self-absorbed". Do you not see anything wrong with that; something totally not balanced?

Then, if we point this out, we're told stuff like "Oh, it's just constructive criticism", and "stop pointing back at others", because we "need to grow", etc. (Making us look totally unreasonable, unbendable, and all the other stuff they call us. This feels like gaslighting). We're even supposed to be "thankful" for this, (so we can becoeme "better", which sounds like up to "par", like the other people) while the other person can be just as immutable, as well as mean and nasty as they want, and it's often supposedly justified by whatever we did (even if passively, or unknowingly)! It's like there's a script on the right way to think and feel, and we need to have it programmed into us like a machine.
If that weren't enough; standing up for ourselves, we're invalidating their feelings, but our feelings don't figure at all (again, no matter how harsh or blunt their approach might be), because (we're told) everyone has the right to defend themselves when they feel a boundary is being crossed, and again, we're just in the wrong, and need to "grow".
Do you see how this is all ONE SIDED? (As it is, we DO have awareness of other's feelings, though it doesn't usually come out the way they want, and part of the problem is said to be the hypersensitivity rather than insensitivity. So we end up already feeling all this guilt about our problems, when so many NT's have no guilt about hardly anything they do, and then, confirm it and throw it in our face by telling us others are the truly aggrieved parties).

We all need to grow, yet it seems to become about trying to force the neurodiverse to grow, while others get to either stay as they are (i.e "inertia"), or grow at their own discretion and pace (and often using various examples of their own growth as talking points)? It's NEVER the other way around with most people. (That is, until years later, if we're lucky, especially when the others learn about ASD, and then, it's "sorry").

And I'm not imagining this; what I've seen always determines this lopsidedness is social POWER. "Might makes 'right'"! Starting with parents. They have power over us, obviously, and it is their job to teach us, so it will end up as "do as I say, not as I do". Then, with peers, jobs, etc. it's personality (including typology or temperament theory, as I mentioned), and status (made easier to attain by personality and skill) where socially stronger people (including "bullies", "alphas", etc.) who have a talent at swaying and moving people, get the schrift. Their flaws will be more tolerated by others, and if they get into a conflict with a neurodiverse, then he's right and the ND is wrong. He can be offended by the autist's "weirdness", or just the way he looks, or whatever, and when he fires back, the autist has no right to be defensive; hes just supposed to just "grow". Like one side is "just right", and the other is "just wrong".
(And from here, we will be accused of thinking so "black and white", but people's judgements of us are often in the starkest black and white terms!) The social problems of autism create a kind of "weakness" (I'm not saying it is genuinely a weakness, but in a cold naturalistic premise, it's teated as one, and that's the "thinking" that needs to be changed) that then has the least allowed inertia; i.e. we're the ones deemed in need of change; i.e. "wrong" (whether that term is used or not, and if we use it to describe the situation, then we essentially "bought" it; i.e. "black and white thinking". But I'm just describing people's clear reactions).

It in practice doesn't seem to be really about "growing" (as if the other person in these conflicts necessarily cares about your own growth, and beyond parents and perhaps a partner, they usually don't). It's about the maintanence of power. (I think the term I was thinking of before was "neuro-conformism" or something like that. Another one that is applicable here is "ableism"). Sometimes, people like parents will be honest, and appeal to "nature"; when trying to explain to the ND child why it's this way. "The strongest survive". But as we see in the other areas of discrimination, such as race, class, sexual orientation, etc. we shouldn't just let nature run unchecked all the time, as if we were nothing but just animals. We end up forcing neurodiverse to change, while narcissists and dowright sociopaths, who have the most affect on culture, are allowed to reign unchallenged, and then we wonder why the world is still so screwed up. This is called "punching downward", and its the same exact thing we have seen in US politics, in areas like race and economics.
You said "Most people want to get along and have positive interactions with people because it helps them feel better", and that often seems to end up as an abstract ideal, that in practice doesn't work out quite that way (and is often marred by the survival instinct on overdrive). How many people make themselves feel better by putting others down? It's not just some 'few' as you seem to imply, it's something running rampant in the social and business culture; and it's certainly not the autistics running those things. (I'm not sure what environment, or even culture you're coming from. There are always pockets of people in the world or in society, where it won't be this bad, so that will halp shape our view of these things as well).

So you may have trained yourself to think more neurotypically, and that's good, but not everyone else can be in that place, and I think there is too much of a push to change the "weakest link", and make it look like some issue of genuine "feeling". From what I've seen, it's pure power play, and deserves to be challenged sometimes.
 
Last edited:
This shows exactly the disparity I was talking about. It starts with the apparent assumption that the NT's are "always right". That's practically what you said last time (and I should have addressed, in addition to the autist's behavior by itself that leads to divorce). We're being made responsible for everything!

So we're incorrect to feel "attacked", and get defensive. Yet everyone gets defensive and feels attacked at times, including by an autist. When we do something (often some "little thing") that makes others feel defensive, or attacked, or anything else, we're wrong, but when we feel defensive or attacked (whether for their retaliation toward whatever we've done, or otherwise), we're wrong. And not only that, but [further] making them feel defensive, and proving their opinions of us being "self-absorbed". Do you not see anything wrong with that; something totally not balanced?

Then, if we point this out, we're told stuff like "Oh, it's just constructive criticism", and "stop pointing back at others", because we "need to grow", etc. (Making us look totally unreasonable, unbendable, and all the other stuff they call us. This feels like gaslighting). We're even supposed to be "thankful" for this, (so we can becoeme "better", which sounds like up to "par", like the other people) while the other person can be just as immutable, as well as mean and nasty as they want, and it's often supposedly justified by whatever we did (even if passively, or unknowingly)! It's like there's a script on the right way to think and feel, and we need to have it programmed into us like a machine.
If that weren't enough; standing up for ourselves, we're invalidating their feelings, but our feelings don't figure at all (again, no matter how harsh or blunt their approach might be), because (we're told) everyone has the right to defend themselves when they feel a boundary is being crossed, and again, we're just in the wrong, and need to "grow".
Do you see how this is all ONE SIDED? (As it is, we DO have awareness of other's feelings, though it doesn't usually come out the way they want, and part of the problem is said to be the hypersensitivity rather than insensitivity. So we end up already feeling all this guilt about our problems, when so many NT's have no guilt about hardly anything they do, and then, confirm it and throw it in our face by telling us others are the truly aggrieved parties).

We all need to grow, yet it seems to become about trying to force the neurodiverse to grow, while others get to either stay as they are (i.e "inertia"), or grow at their own discretion and pace (and often using various examples of their own growth as talking points)? It's NEVER the other way around with most people. (That is, until years later, if we're lucky, especially when the others learn about ASD, and then, it's "sorry").

And I'm not imagining this; what I've seen always determines this lopsidedness is social POWER. "Might makes 'right'"! Starting with parents. They have power over us, obviously, and it is their job to teach us, so it will end up as "do as I say, not as I do". Then, with peers, jobs, etc. it's personality (including typology or temperament theory, as I mentioned), and status (made easier to attain by personality and skill) where socially stronger people (including "bullies", "alphas", etc.) who have a talent at swaying and moving people, get the schrift. Their flaws will be more tolerated by others, and if they get into a conflict with a neurodiverse, then he's right and the ND is wrong. He can be offended by the autist's "weirdness", or just the way he looks, or whatever, and when he fires back, the autist has no right to be defensive; hes just supposed to just "grow". Like one side is "just right", and the other is "just wrong".
(And from here, we will be accused of thinking so "black and white", but people's judgements of us are often in the starkest black and white terms!) The social problems of autism create a kind of "weakness" (I'm not saying it is genuinely a weakness, but in a cold naturalistic premise, it's teated as one, and that's the "thinking" that needs to be changed) that then has the least allowed inertia; i.e. we're the ones deemed in need of change; i.e. "wrong" (whether that term is used or not, and if we use it to describe the situation, then we essentially "bought" it; i.e. "black and white thinking". But I'm just describing people's clear reactions).

It in practice doesn't seem to be really about "growing" (as if the other person in these conflicts necessarily cares about your own growth, and beyond parents and perhaps a partner, they usually don't). It's about the maintanence of power. (I think the term I was thinking of before was "neuro-conformity" or something like that. Another one that is applicable here is "ableism"). Sometimes, people like parents will be honest, and appeal to "nature"; when trying to explain to the ND child why it's this way. "The strongest survive". But as we see in the other areas of discrimination, such as race, class, sexual orientation, etc. we shouldn't just let nature run it's course all the time, as if we were nothing but just animals. We end up forcing neurodiverse to change, while narcissists and dowright sociopathes,w ho have the most affect on culture, are allowed to reign unchallenged, and then we wonder why the world is still so screwed up. This is called "punching downward", and its the same exact thing we have seen in US politics, in areas like race and economics.
You said "Most people want to get along and have positive interactions with people because it helps them feel better", and that often seems to end up as an abstract ideal, that in practice doesn't work out quite that way (and is often marred by the survival instinct on overdrive). How many people make themselves feel better by putting others down? It's not just some 'few' as you seem to imply, it's something running rampant in the social and business culture; and it's certainly not the autistics running those things. (I'm not sure what environment, or even culture you're coming from. There are always pockets of people in the world or in society, where it won't be this bad, so that will halp shape our view of these things as well).

So you may have trained yourself to think more neurotypically, and that's good, but not everyone else can be in that place, and I think there is too much of a push to change the "weakest link", and make it look like some issue of genuine "feeling". From what I've seen, it's pure power play, and deserves to be challenged sometimes.

NT are far from always right and that you believe you're right, doesn't make it so.
 
"I'd be thankful someone brought one of my weaknesses to my attention"
This bothers me. It is not a weakness to not fulfill the un-communicated desires of another person. You can't get along with everyone, you can't make everyone happy with who you are and what you do all of the time. None of this points to weakness. What she described was a weakness, yes. But going by the posts I doubt she even knew what she meant. At least I wouldn't just buy that Eric is any more self-absorbed than anyone else.
If someone is upset with you, this is not always personal failing on your part. This is a relationship strain. That's all you can say. And not every relationship deserves not being strained. To drive my point home an example: Having hobbies people can't relate to as a kid will have others be genuinely upset with you. "You're weird." etc. Imagine considering this a weakness on your end and then also valuing the importance of relationship over self-respect. You will fall into the people pleasing trap in a second, something I'm sure many here have experience with.
It's good to care about others in general obviously, but I'd be very careful about what you consider a flaw of your being.

Anyway the questioning approach is good communication, I also recommend it.
 
This shows exactly the disparity I was talking about. It starts with the apparent assumption that the NT's are "always right". That's practically what you said last time (and I should have addressed, in addition to the autist's behavior by itself that leads to divorce). We're being made responsible for everything!

So we're incorrect to feel "attacked", and get defensive. Yet everyone gets defensive and feels attacked at times, including by an autist. When we do something (often some "little thing") that makes others feel defensive, or attacked, or anything else, we're wrong, but when we feel defensive or attacked (whether for their retaliation toward whatever we've done, or otherwise), we're wrong. And not only that, but [further] making them feel defensive, and proving their opinions of us being "self-absorbed". Do you not see anything wrong with that; something totally not balanced?

No one claimed NTs are always right (black and white thinking) nor did anyone say autistic people are responsible for everything (catastrophic thinking). These interpretations are cognitive distortions which is a type of irrational thinking. CBT can teach you how to think rationally.

It's not a matter of us (autistics) versus them (NTs). Mental problems can affect anyone. The difference is between the mentally well who think rationally versus the mentally ill who think irrationally (aka cognitive distortions). People who feel attacked due to irrational thinking/cognitive distortions when it's not actually happening are wrong regardless of whether they are autistic or NT. I fully agree this affects NTs as well.

Then, if we point this out, we're told stuff like "Oh, it's just constructive criticism", and "stop pointing back at others", because we "need to grow", etc. (Making us look totally unreasonable, unbendable, and all the other stuff they call us. This feels like gaslighting). We're even supposed to be "thankful" for this, (so we can becoeme "better", which sounds like up to "par", like the other people) while the other person can be just as immutable, as well as mean and nasty as they want, and it's often supposedly justified by whatever we did (even if passively, or unknowingly)! It's like there's a script on the right way to think and feel, and we need to have it programmed into us like a machine.

I can only speak for myself but I was being unreasonable and wrongly believed I was being gaslighted due to cognitive distortions causing me to misunderstand other people. I'm thankful people helped break through my wall of stubbornness because I am no longer stressed out by misinterpretations that caused me to frequently feel worse around other people.

If that weren't enough; standing up for ourselves, we're invalidating their feelings, but our feelings don't figure at all (again, no matter how harsh or blunt their approach might be), because (we're told) everyone has the right to defend themselves when they feel a boundary is being crossed, and again, we're just in the wrong, and need to "grow"...

Everyone's feelings matter. However, if your feelings are frequently hurt because irrational thinking causes you to frequently misunderstand people then it's your fault your feelings are hurt and no one else should be blamed for it. Hypersensitivity is a mental problem, frequently affecting NTs in some parts of the world, that can be cured with CBT. You wouldn't feel guilty if you made the effort to overcome it. If hypersensitivity is common where you live, you probably live in a neighborhood where mental illness is rampant. Philosophers have long noted a link between mental wellness and virtuous lifestyles so I recommend moving to a neighborhood where people still have morals (respect law and order, side with victims of crime instead of making excuses for criminals, prefer hard work over handouts/theft of taxpayers money).

The reason some fully grown adults still act like toddlers (with their emotional immaturity and tantrums/meltdowns) is because they are too stubborn to listen to good advice or too lazy to make the changes they need to grow, preferring the easier childish path of blaming everyone else for their problems (such as misattributing their personal failures to autism, racism, misogyny, etc.). I recently watched videos of grown adults (mostly NTs) throwing temper tantrums and having meltdowns because people with morals will no longer allow them to murder their children they had as a result of their irresponsible behavior/lack of self-control. Wanting people to grow up and get better is not ableism. It's called personal responsibility which is what allows people to become mature adults who behave appropriately.

So you may have trained yourself to think more neurotypically, and that's good, but not everyone else can be in that place, and I think there is too much of a push to change the "weakest link", and make it look like some issue of genuine "feeling". From what I've seen, it's pure power play, and deserves to be challenged sometimes.

I didn't train myself to think neurotypically. I trained myself to think rationally (something some NTs also struggle with). Everyone can absolutely learn how to think rationally. I think there is too much of a push to accept personal weaknesses and not enough of a push to encourage people to grow up and act like an adult by making the effort to overcome their problems.
 
You did say:
Based on my experience, when several people say someone is self-absorbed they are always correct.

That is rather "black and white", and as I said, when I spit it back (perhaps paraphrased a bit), then I've bought the "black and white" label, and the other person is completely off the hook. Yes, there are cognitive distortions, but when this is tossed out like this at any counterclaim, it does become like gaslighting, which is defined as trying to make a person question their reality. "Oh, what you're seeing is totally invalid; we weren't possibly too hard, or blunt, we aren't doing the same things we criticize you for, it's not really happening; it's just your cognitive distortion" or even "mental illness" now, etc. (again, ever so ironic to tell a person who then is the one who gets accused of "ignoring others' feelings"!)

As far as "feelings", I didn't speak of "frequency", so it has nothing to do with how often it occurs; it's just that whenever it occurs, the disparity is seen with certain people/groups/settings. And I don't think it's about a neighborhood. I've never heard of mental illness confined to certain neighborhoods. The entire society is basically like this, in survival mode. (again, I don't know where you are from, but I'm in the big city. But mental illness is in suburban and rural areas as well).

And are you referring to the Roe v Wade decision "people with morals will no longer allow them to murder their children they had as a result of their irresponsible behavior/lack of self-control". While I myself don't believe in abortion as regular birth control, such a statement would be very sweeping, generalistic and narrow. There's more to that issue than what you describe. With "prefer hard work over handouts/theft of taxpayers money" also, you're starting to sound like a particular side of US political debate. That is a group that is infamous for double-standards, as I mentioned, such as telling others to be thankful and "stop whining", while they're complaining the loudest about everything, such as everyone being "immoral", "irresponsible" or "getting handouts", and even "persecuting" them, and then claiming to be moral, yet doing all the stuff they've been doing in recent years. Such people naturally will not like having the inconsistencies pointed out, and so dismiss the other side's view as "distorted". While personal responsibility is of course the ideal, I find that the pitch for it often becomes a kind of self-righteous judgmentalism (that ignores some of one's ongoing flaws, such as judgmentalism, being too harsh, etc. figuring one has done so well in overcoming their problems, having a "virtuous lifestyle", "mature adult" etc. so everyone else then is "making excuses"), and this kind of thinking has pervaded Western culture (particularly the US, in pop-psychology, "self-help", etc., and all embodied in conservative rhetoric), and this is part of what I've been pointing out as leading to unfair judgments of autists, or anyone who isn't "up to par" with these idealistic standards.
There must be some grace (as I say in the very parallel area of religion) for people struggling with things that may not be or no longer be our problems. The "toxic positivity" culture just wants to give "tough talk" (as the whole mindset is based on the "rugged individualism" of the wild frontier), but that is not for everybody.
 
Last edited:
You did say:


That is rather "black and white", and as I said, when I spit it back (perhaps paraphrased a bit), then I've bought the "black and white" label, and the other person is completely off the hook. Yes, there are cognitive distortions, but when this is tossed out like this at any counterclaim, it does become like gaslighting, which is defined as trying to make a person question their reality. "Oh, what you're seeing is totally invalid; we weren't possibly too hard, or blunt, we aren't doing the same things we criticize you for, it's not really happening; it's just your cognitive distortion" or even "mental illness" now, etc. (again, ever so ironic to tell a person who then is the one who gets accused of "ignoring others' feelings"!)

As far as "feelings", I didn't speak of "frequency", so it has nothing to do with how often it occurs; it's just that whenever it occurs, the disparity is seen with certain people/groups/settings. And I don't think it's about a neighborhood. I've never heard of mental illness confined to certain neighborhoods. The entire society is basically like this, in survival mode. (again, I don't know where you are from, but I'm in the big city. But mental illness is in suburban and rural areas as well).

And are you referring to the Roe v Wade decision "people with morals will no longer allow them to murder their children they had as a result of their irresponsible behavior/lack of self-control". While I myself don't believe in abortion as regular birth control, such a statement would be very sweeping, generalistic and narrow. There's more to that issue than what you describe. With "prefer hard work over handouts/theft of taxpayers money" also, you're starting to sound like a particular side of US political debate. That is a group that is infamous for double-standards, as I mentioned, such as telling others to be thankful and "stop whining", while they're complaining the loudest about everything, such as everyone being "immoral", "irresponsible" or "getting handouts", and even "persecuting" them, and then claiming to be moral, yet doing all the stuff they've been doing in recent years. Such people naturally will not like having the inconsistencies pointed out, and so dismiss the other side's view as "distorted". While personal responsibility is of course the ideal, I find that the pitch for it often becomes a kind of self-righteous judgmentalism (that ignores some of one's ongoing flaws, such as judgmentalism, being too harsh, etc. figuring one has done so well in overcoming their problems, having a "virtuous lifestyle", "mature adult" etc. so everyone else then is "making excuses"), and this kind of thinking has pervaded Western culture (particularly the US, in pop-psychology, "self-help", etc., and all embodied in conservative rhetoric), and this is part of what I've been pointing out as leading to unfair judgments of autists, or anyone who isn't "up to par" with these idealistic standards.
There must be some grace (as I say in the very parallel area of religion) for people struggling with things that may not be or no longer be our problems. The "toxic positivity" culture just wants to give "tough talk" (as the whole mindset is based on the "rugged individualism" of the wild frontier), but that is not for everybody.

Black and white thinking refers to irrationally thinking in extremes such as saying everyone is smart of dumb while ignoring what is in-between (some people are average). Saying that a coin only has 2 sides or that I believe the few times I heard several people call someone self-absorbed were always correct is not black and white thinking.

Nearly everyone I've heard who claimed they were being gaslighted were living in an alternate reality, misunderstanding people due to thinking irrationally and experiencing abnormal emotions because of it. These people usually also suffer from a cognitive distortion called emotional reasoning which means they think with their emotions instead of logical reasoning which often leads them astray and makes it nearly impossible to get them to recognize what they're doing.

Studies show conservatives have low rates of mental illness while those who self-identify as liberals have much higher rates of mental illness. One study found that most young women in the US who self-identified as liberal were mentally ill. Here's a link:

Pew Study: White Liberals Disproportionately Suffer From Mental Illness.

My experience strongly confirms what studies have shown. I think cognitive distortions are causing you to misunderstand conservatives since the stuff you wrote about conservatives is inconsistent with my experience with them.

I don't see any need for grace since I don't think anyone is attacking you. I recommended CBT because I think it would reduce your stress, help you understand people better, improve your relationships, and increase your quality of life. I think the question you ultimately have to ask yourself is, "Do you want to get better?" It's easier to find faults in others since no one is perfect and use that as an excuse to ignore advice and do nothing.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom