People are smarter than they say

[Polchinski]

When I complain as to why I don't have friends or why nobody approaches me, I am often advised to approach people myself. The rationale behind this is, supposedly, that due to my never approaching anyone I give off the impression that I want to be left alone.

Well, lets see whether that is the case or not. Look at the following stock photo, without reading the title Young man rejected from the group isolated on white background. | CanStock

Does it look like that person wants to be left alone?

Now, go read the title. Does the title says the person wants to be left alone? Nope. It says the person is being rejected. Why is that? Because pretending not to care is a defense mechanism. And that defense mechanism is so well understood that by drawing someone who "pretends not to care", everyone knows that he is being rejected.

Well, isn't it the same exact situation with me? I pretend not to care, but its defense mechanism. In reality I am being rejected. If people who see that drawing know it, then people that observe me know that too.

Now you might say: in that drawing its clear that the person cares because he is standing right next to that group he wants to be part of. Well, I do the same thing, too. I come to a Bible study, then I purposely pick a chair that is far away from everyone, in order to see if anyone would sit next to me. And then nobody sits next to me, and I get upset. So I am doing the same thing that person is doing, am I not? If everyone knows that person is being rejected, they should also know that I am being rejected.

This being the case, the excuse that people are telling me that "they think I want to be left alone" doesn't work, since nobody thinks the person in that drawing wants to be left alone. I suspect that people who tell me that, know perfeclty well that they are lying. They are just lying to make me feel better.

 

[Raggamuffin]

A good samaritan might chat to the person in the photo. But he's rather melodramatically moping in my opinion.

As for sitting far away from the group - I did this in all of my History of Art classes for 2 years at college, and no - nobody sat next to me. I thought they were the one's being problematic. But looking back I can see I was being antisocial and stubborn and expecting other people to adapt to my own, silent needs that I never attempted to express.

If you sit far away from the group, that doesn't exactly send out a warm and inviting message to people. It sort of suggests you want to be left alone. Thus people will probably leave you be. I know you claim that to be an excuse that people tell you, and you say it doesn't work. But that's because your beliefs aren't allowing it to work. You say: "since nobody thinks the person in that drawing wants to be left alone." but that is your beliefs that you think matches what everyone else believes. You can't speak for everyone else. You assume something, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Someone sitting alone and being upset - as I said to begin with, now and then you might get a good samaritan who checks in on you. But the reality is, giving off a negative vibe with being upset is something other people pick up on. All the while, being sat far away from everyone else in a group is going to going to have a lot of people thinking you just want to be left alone, or not wanting to approach you.

Ed

 

[Polchinski]

A good samaritan might chat to the person in the photo. But he's rather melodramatically moping in my opinion.

As for sitting far away from the group - I did this in all of my History of Art classes for 2 years at college, and no - nobody sat next to me. I thought they were the one's being problematic. But looking back I can see I was being antisocial and stubborn and expecting other people to adapt to my own, silent needs that I never attempted to express.

If you sit far away from the group, that doesn't exactly send out a warm and inviting message to people. It sort of suggests you want to be left alone. Thus people will probably leave you be. I know you claim that to be an excuse that people tell you, and you say it doesn't work. But that's because your beliefs aren't allowing it to work. You say: "since nobody thinks the person in that drawing wants to be left alone." but that is your beliefs that you think matches what everyone else believes. You can't speak for everyone else. You assume something, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Someone sitting alone and being upset - as I said to begin with, now and then you might get a good samaritan who checks in on you. But the reality is, giving off a negative vibe with being upset is something other people pick up on. All the while, being sat far away from everyone else in a group is going to going to have a lot of people thinking you just want to be left alone, or not wanting to approach you.

Ed

Well, then the question is: why did they titled the photo as the person being rejected as opposed to the person wanting to be left alone? I mean stock photo is supposed to be obvious. So since its a stock photo of rejection, it means that it should be obvious for everyone its a rejection.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

Now you might say: in that drawing its clear that the person cares because he is standing right next to that group he wants to be part of. Well, I do the same thing, too. I come to a Bible study, then I purposely pick a chair that is far away from everyone, in order to see if anyone would sit next to me. And then nobody sits next to me, and I get upset. So I am doing the same thing that person is doing, am I not? If everyone knows that person is being rejected, they should also know that I am being rejected.

I think from their point of view you are rejecting yourself. If you choose to sit far away and other people don't, then they might think:

1) You are being defensive, and they don't want to deal with your emotions since those are your problem.

2) You want space and they are respecting that.

So yes, you will have to engage and deal with the rejections and learning that comes with that.

 

[Raggamuffin]

Well, then the question is: why did they titled the photo as the person being rejected as opposed to the person wanting to be left alone? I mean stock photo is supposed to be obvious. So since its a stock photo of rejection, it means that it should be obvious for everyone its a rejection.

Because this stock photo is a rather simplistic stereotype and isn't a fair comparisson between what's happening in your real life.

I'm saying that you sitting on your own, in a bad mood and feeling isolated will give off a bad vibe to people.

As the post above said - if you want to socialise more, you have to be pro-active. Sit with the group next time. Engage and talk with people. Don't do what you keep doing and expect something miraculous to change. Because it's unlikely to happen.

Ed

 

[tree]

The stock photos mentioned are artistic representations,
not candid photos taken of actual social gatherings.

 

[Forest Cat]

I'm saying that you sitting on your own, in a bad mood and feeling isolated will give off a bad vibe to people.

Yeah I had a job once where I would eat lunch in a break room. Everyone there knew each other but I didn't know anyone, I had just started. So people were sitting in groups and every day I sat at a table alone. And looking back, I think it looked like I sat there moping by myself and I didn't try to talk with anyone. So who can blame those people for not trying to make contact with me, who wants to deal with a stranger that is sitting alone moping in a corner. I could have walked over to someone, smiled and said "hello, can I sit here?". Pretty sure they would have said sure, grab a chair and sit down.

 

[Darkkin]

That stock photo is a caricature of reality...meaning it is a staged exaggeration of what exclusion looks like. Costumes designed to show him versus them...that isn't how reality works.

If people want to interact, want to open a door into a new group...it is the one wanting in who has to take the first step and knock on the figurative door. Pouting because a group of people doesn't swarm around the lone individual in exultant jubilation is bordering on satire.

It is an indicator of unrealistic entitlement, emotional immaturity, and a defeatist attitude when thwarted.

e.g. The group is not making overtures of welcome to him, therefore the group is at fault is a false assumption.

Take a hard left and switch perspective, consider what it looks like from the inside out. Here is this guy who doesn't have to conform to the social structure of a private school. He can wear what he wants. Do what he wants. Go where he wants...and he's sulking because he isn't part of this toxic morass of quashed creativity. He can be himself. In the group everyone is just like everybody else. Step out of line, the group will put you back in line.

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). Go in with a chip shoulder assuming rejection, well, the group picks up the vibe and obilges the individual. Having to deal with the weight of assumptive fault is truly one of the most toxic things one person can do to another.

Some of it can be emotional immaturity, which can be addressed with personal accountability and time. Basically being responsible for one's behaviour and actions, being able to admit a mistake, or accept disappointment without making everyone in proximity as upset or miserable as the faulter is about said mistake.

Flipside is there are simply some people who are not happy until everyone around them is as miserable as they are. Be it from lifelong resentment and bitterness, zero accountability, entitlement, etc....the list goes on.

Want to interact with people social reciprocity is required. Go in with a defeatist attitude, that attitude will be mirrored right back.

Interested in a group, maybe sit nearby. Pull out a book, sketch, or scroll on the phone. Keep the ground neutral. It offers an level field to either side to make an opening volley.

 

[1ForAll]

When I complain as to why I don't have friends or why nobody approaches me, I am often advised to approach people myself. The rationale behind this is, supposedly, that due to my never approaching anyone I give off the impression that I want to be left alone.

Well, lets see whether that is the case or not. Look at the following stock photo, without reading the title Young man rejected from the group isolated on white background. | CanStock

Does it look like that person wants to be left alone?

Now, go read the title. Does the title says the person wants to be left alone? Nope. It says the person is being rejected. Why is that? Because pretending not to care is a defense mechanism. And that defense mechanism is so well understood that by drawing someone who "pretends not to care", everyone knows that he is being rejected.

Well, isn't it the same exact situation with me? I pretend not to care, but its defense mechanism. In reality I am being rejected. If people who see that drawing know it, then people that observe me know that too.

Now you might say: in that drawing its clear that the person cares because he is standing right next to that group he wants to be part of. Well, I do the same thing, too. I come to a Bible study, then I purposely pick a chair that is far away from everyone, in order to see if anyone would sit next to me. And then nobody sits next to me, and I get upset. So I am doing the same thing that person is doing, am I not? If everyone knows that person is being rejected, they should also know that I am being rejected.

This being the case, the excuse that people are telling me that "they think I want to be left alone" doesn't work, since nobody thinks the person in that drawing wants to be left alone. I suspect that people who tell me that, know perfeclty well that they are lying. They are just lying to make me feel better.

I read postures, expressions and mannerisms well, and so that stock picture obviously shows a person far more likely than not feeling rejected, by him looking upset with head down near the others. However, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that that image shows him "pretending not to care." I disagree. It shows he cares what the others think and that is why he looks dejected or sad. If he were masking his feelings there, and showing instead he wanted to be left alone, the image would have made him appear either more aloof, confident, not bothered, busy, etc.

So, if you sat down in a chair far away from persons, with your head down looking at a bible near a group of sitting others, that is totally different than one standing with head down near a crowd, arms down loosely by their side as if sad, shy or depressed, near a crowd of socializing persons. I mean, if the others saw you were reading a bible alone far away from the other sitters, but you seemed to be deep in concentration, studying or not aware of the others as you were preoccupied, regardless if head was down, that can be viewed totally differently, as "pretending not to care," which would get less persons approaching.

However, if you were seated alone and seemed not busy and looked shy or nervous, with head down or away from the others, like with flushed face, nervous expression, sweating, fidgety or trembling hands, I am the type that would feel more comfortable sitting next to that person, because it reminded me of who I was through my school, college and early adult years, and where I felt rejected by everyone who were chatting away and in groups, and as I would not want that person alone to feel rejected. As well, I feel they'd less likely reject me if they were indeed that same way, wanting someone to approach and show care.

 

[Rodafina]

In addition to all the great perspectives above, I would add that for me, I often do choose to put myself on the outside of a group, but that is my sign that I need space and I don’t want people to interact with me, and when they don’t, I appreciate it. Isolating yourself works in keeping people away. So if you don’t want to keep people away, you can’t isolate.

It is not fair to test people and expect them to act counterintuitively to their own best judgment.

 

[Darkkin]

People who go through life expecting others to magically read their minds and kowtow to a predetermined script are out of touch with reality.

This is live action. This is life. It requires everyone to be accountable for their own part. No one else is going to do it for them.

 

[1ForAll]

People who go through life expecting others to magically read their minds and kowtow to a predetermined script are out of touch with reality.

This is live action. This is life. It requires everyone to be accountable for their own part. No one else is going to do it for them.

While it is true it's impossible to read minds, sometimes it can be easier to guess or have more accuracy in determining what one could be thinking or feeling if we are better at understanding any nonverbal cues and language the other gives off. But even then, assuming in the best case scenario where masking does not occur, if one who is good at picking up on those nonverbal postures, expressions and mannerisms, it still can be confusing as some appearing nervous and shy could want to be left alone, but others who appear that way could hope to feel not rejected, but to get a friend or so to sit near them or understand.

So, the bottom line is, we often cannot assume things, but guess or hypothesize what that other wants or needs, unless things are obviously clear. Often the answer will be found out later, through a bigger sample size, from more observations and from how the other responds to others coming closer or backing further away. Also, through any attempts at verbal communication, by asking that other a targeted or well-meaning question, or by giving some nice comment this could give a clue or more too what the other was thinking or feeling, though again, masking can occur there in how they reply back, or the reply may not be accurate to their own desires and needs.

So, yeah, the preferred thing would be if the other stated what they truly wanted or needed, but that is not realistic often as many persons don't open themselves up too much to others too soon these days, if busy or wanting to not get too involved, unless very confident, extroverted, etc, in this day where critiques, bad judgments and rejections occur, intentions can be unknown, and when strangers approaching or unwanted too much attention can be intimidating.

 

[Darkkin]

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.

(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.)

For some odd reason babies always smile at me. Toddlers, too. They love to say hi and bye. Those kind of conversations I love because they are as honest and open as can be. This is what blind trust looks like.

The amount of information you can figure out just by watching is immense. 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.

The guy who steps aside to let a matriarchal group pass. This is a small unspoken courtesy. He didn't have to move, but he did to accommodate others. This individual is conscious of those around him. Reciprocated respect for that action is accrued.

Etc...

We cannot erase limbic reactions and subconscious assumptions, but we can take an active role in how we behave in these situations.

e.g.

My honest, autistic reaction to excluded guy's melodramatic exhibition.

Disgust. Grow up. How is such immature and theatrical behaviour going to help the situation? When is such an overreaction ever reasonable?

 

[Rodafina]

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.

(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.)

For some odd reason babies always smile at me. Toddlers, too. They love to say hi and bye. Those kind of conversations I love because they are as honest and open as can be. This is what blind trust looks like.

The amount of information you can figure out just by watching is immense. 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.

The guy who steps aside to let a matriarchal group pass. This is a small unspoken courtesy. He didn't have to move, but he did to accommodate others. This individual is conscious of those around him. Reciprocated respect for that action is accrued.

Etc...

It sounds like you are a keen observer of social behavior. I like to do that too. I’m guessing one of the benefits of working in retail… Lots of data collection there. That was the one thing I enjoyed about working in a coffee shop when I was much younger.

I found it really interesting to read how you can get a feel for someone based on what book/books they are buying.

 

[Knower of nothing]

Imagining myself in both sides of the situation. I'd find it just as difficult to approach the loner as a group member as I would approaching a group member as a loner. I don't think it's fair to place expectations or responsibility in either direction.

 

[Darkkin]

It sounds like you are a keen observer of social behavior. I like to do that too. I’m guessing one of the benefits of working in retail… Lots of data collection there. That was the one thing I enjoyed about working in a coffee shop when I was much younger.

I found it really interesting to read how you can get a feel for someone based on what book/books they are buying.

There are certain demographics that ask for certain books because they heard about it on media source A or Q.

Or

You have an older lady come up with a stack of YA fantasy and seem embarrassed because it is teen fiction. I'll address the stigmata head on, usually because I've read the book.

Just because a book is targeted to a younger age group doesn't mean it is off limits. Younger to older is a bit more complicated in that while a child may be an accelerated reader some content and situations can be problematic as far as reader comprehension of said situation goes.

I am never going to judge a person for reading. If it makes you think, if you enjoy it that's what matters.

Heck, nearly 25% of my own library is comprised of picture books and children's novels. I own the Twilight Saga. And I love romance novel. My books are a core context tool I use with people. While it might not be a book I've read I pick up on the sales patterns and customer demographics. This is one of the few things my autistic brain excels with. A few obscure data points and I have the pattern.

 

[Polchinski]

I read postures, expressions and mannerisms well, and so that stock picture obviously shows a person far more likely than not feeling rejected, by him looking upset with head down near the others. However, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that that image shows him "pretending not to care." I disagree. It shows he cares what the others think and that is why he looks dejected or sad. If he were masking his feelings there, and showing instead he wanted to be left alone, the image would have made him appear either more aloof, confident, not bothered, busy, etc.

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?

 

[Forest Cat]

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?

People don't know what you are thinking, if you look sad or glum or like that guy in the picture, they assume something is wrong. They don't read between the lines, they just see that you look sad or glum and they have to decide, do they want to get involved in that or not. We can't expect people to read between the lines, understand what we want and then make life better for us.

 

[Darkkin]

The subject in the provided media looks like he is one step from a tantrum. Realisticly speaking people don't see this in public very often unless it is an individual with a neurological or emotional disorder, usually significant enough to warrant required supervision of said adult.

You see it in kids and is often a behaviour one out grows as we mature emotionally.

Sensory overload and meltdowns are a separate kettle of fish. In cases like that there is definitely something wrong and social interaction is usually the absolute last thing one wasn't at that time.

Malcontentment or overt disappointment are not signs to others to 'read between the lines' and further a conversation. It is the nonverbal equivalent of 'leave me alone or I will make my issues yours...'

Assuming the mantel of an outcast doesn't weave a magic thrall over people as the media like to portray. It is mysterious and angsty...Nope, in most cases, it is a red flag that signals people to stay away. The limbic fight or flight response is triggered and most people will give such individuals a wide breadth. A bully might decide they're a good source for a fight, but in reality most people don't have time to condone and encourage social entitlement.

 

[Rodafina]

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?

Remember, you’re working with another false premise here. The drawing is a hyperbole and even still just one person’s opinion. As you stated, without the caption, it is open to varied interpretations. It would be risky to put too much of your own experience into this drawing and I don’t think can be used to interpret your real life experiences.