Statement on "self-absorption"

[Knower of nothing]

It's not about ignoring advice. It's about misapplied advice. It does not fit in this circumstance. It is not about growing as a person in THIS case, it is simply about accomodating others. Matthias you ironically seem to not be seeing things clearly and instead purely through the lense of your limited personal experience, though a relevant one, it is not the only one. You are giving advice to yourself for a problem you had. It's like you've put such value in the results of its application. It's an over-eagerness to validate the results.
But they don't fit here. People don't need therapy just because someone called them self-absorped. There is no obligation to accomodate everyone, especially not all of the time. And you are getting a little sidetracked with your incessantly dichotomic american politics-infused mindset (the posterchild of irrationality) which also really does not fit here.

 

[Eric B]

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.

Anyone can believe that they are "rational" and others are "irrational" and posting that link is showing you are being very partisan, and not objective, as you're trying to present yourself. Those "studies" are SPUN, and by selecting different data, can be made to say whatever anyone wants them to. I've seen more of them saying the opposite (I don't even want to mention the party/wing names; but recent politics of the last few years makes that side look more believable). Clearly, there's an agenda to pitch one political view, and as Knower of Nothing said, this is not the place for it.
So basically, what you were suggesting is that moving to conservative areas will solve the problems I was mentioning (attributed to other forms of "mental illness"), but if anything, it would likely be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I'm seeing the same exact denial of inconsistencies, and deflectionary tactics now. I never said I was being "attacked" (at least in this discussion. But you can't answer for every other person I've had a conflict with in my life to say none of them were ever attacking, but you seem to be generalizing that each instance must be just our "cognitive distortions"). So that's an easy straw man.

You sound like you're taking these common traits of autism and using them wrongly in the debate. (i.e. what you're saying is wrong, because you're still in your irrational cognitive distortion state unlike me).
I started this topic to voice some inconsistencies I've seen in the world, in relation to autistic people, and to suggest that some of the judgments and labels were a bit overblown, and not taking into consideration the flaws NT's exhibit in the patter, or their part in conflicts. To you, this is all "cognitive distortions", rendering the entire perspective invalid. (And when I call this out, that's another "cognitive distortion"!) Again, that is such an easy cop-out. So now, anything I say you can call a "cognitive distortion". Just like in politics, people then just end up talking past each other, just thinking they're right and the other is wrong.

Yes, people like you DO need to have "grace", because you yourself are misjudging others, and posing as the "coach" to show me (or others) how to fix my life ("increase the quality" even, etc.) and it becomes about me "wanting to get better," which again puts you in this authoritative place, because if I dispute what you say, then I'm "refusing to grow" (—right?) But that's a wrong setup. There's two people here having a discussion (not a counselling session), both imperfect, and with room to grow, and who need to hear the other's perspective!
That is a very typical tautological tactic, used by both self-help fads and religious movements such as "prosperity gospel" to ensure they cannot be refuted, because it's just everyone else's obstinacy. Some words Jesus spoke (I hope this isn't a problem; we've already brought politics into this which is enough) are very applicable: "If you [recognized you were] were blind, you would have no [error]: but now you say, 'We see'; therefore your [error] remains."

 

[Matthias]

Anyone can believe that they are "rational" and others are "irrational" and posting that link is showing you are being very partisan, and not objective, as you're trying to present yourself. Those "studies" are SPUN, and by selecting different data, can be made to say whatever anyone wants them to. I've seen more of them saying the opposite (I don't even want to mention the party/wing names; but recent politics of the last few years makes that side look more believable). Clearly, there's an agenda to pitch one political view, and as Knower of Nothing said, this is not the place for it.
So basically, what you were suggesting is that moving to conservative areas will solve the problems I was mentioning (attributed to other forms of "mental illness"), but if anything, it would likely be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I'm seeing the same exact denial of inconsistencies, and deflectionary tactics now. I never said I was being "attacked" (at least in this discussion. But you can't answer for every other person I've had a conflict with in my life to say none of them were ever attacking, but you seem to be generalizing that each instance must be just our "cognitive distortions"). So that's an easy straw man.

You sound like you're taking these common traits of autism and using them wrongly in the debate. (i.e. what you're saying is wrong, because you're still in your irrational cognitive distortion state unlike me).
I started this topic to voice some inconsistencies I've seen in the world, in relation to autistic people, and to suggest that some of the judgments and labels were a bit overblown, and not taking into consideration the flaws NT's exhibit in the patter, or their part in conflicts. To you, this is all "cognitive distortions", rendering the entire perspective invalid. (And when I call this out, that's another "cognitive distortion"!) Again, that is such an easy cop-out. So now, anything I say you can call a "cognitive distortion". Just like in politics, people then just end up talking past each other, just thinking they're right and the other is wrong.

Yes, people like you DO need to have "grace", because you yourself are misjudging others, and posing as the "coach" to show me (or others) how to fix my life ("increase the quality" even, etc.) and it becomes about me "wanting to get better," which again puts you in this authoritative place, because if I dispute what you say, then I'm "refusing to grow" (—right?) But that's a wrong setup. There's two people here having a discussion (not a counselling session), both imperfect, and with room to grow, and who need to hear the other's perspective!
That is a very typical tautological tactic, used by both self-help fads and religious movements such as "prosperity gospel" to ensure they cannot be refuted, because it's just everyone else's obstinacy. Some words Jesus spoke (I hope this isn't a problem; we've already brought politics into this which is enough) are very applicable: "If you [recognized you were] were blind, you would have no [error]: but now you say, 'We see'; therefore your [error] remains."

I never accused you of anything, never said your perspective is invalid, never said that disputing me means you are "refusing to grow" yet you are responding like you are being attacked.

I'm simply trying to share what I learned in the hope that it may help you. If several people told me I had a weakness or personality flaw such as being self-absorbed, I'd ask myself relevant questions such as:

1. Is it true?
2. If so, is it a big enough problem that it's worth the time and money to treat it?

Even if everything you wrote about the people who told you that you were self-absorbed (such as having cognitive distortions of their own, being hypocritical, etc.) is true, none of it refutes their statement that you are self-absorbed. It's all completely irrelevant since they could still be correct even if everything you said about them is true.

It's your life. If they're right about you being self-absorbed and you want to use irrelevant reasoning to avoid dealing with it, you are the one who will suffer the natural consequences of it affecting your relationships and quality of life. It's your choice. Do whatever you want.

 

[Eric B]

Your method doesn't say these things; it implies them. What do you call when someone says something, and you respond to it by referring to stuff like "cognitive distortions"? And you're still doing it; still with the key word "attacked" (which you tied to "cognitive distortions"), and now, also "accused" (which I did not used referring to anything you said). These now are your own words, and they are straw men used to bolster your points. Like this last statement: "you want to use irrelevant reasoning to avoid dealing with it, you are the one who will suffer the natural consequences of it affecting your relationships and quality of life. It's your choice". That's all I meant by "refusing to grow". You just worded it differently, and put it forth in a more hypothetical way ("If..." rather than an absolute pronouncement of what will happen); but that was my point, and making it contingent doesn't change that point.

So you should ask yourself those two questions too. I'm not even the only one saying these things about some of your statements. That's my point. Not that I shouldn't ask the questions. And lest you say I'm misinterpreting your words again:

Even if everything you wrote about the people who told you that you were self-absorbed (such as having cognitive distortions of their own, being hypocritical, etc.) is true, none of it refutes their statement that you are self-absorbed. It's all completely irrelevant since they could still be correct even if everything you said about them is true.

You missed the point entirely! I never claimed to "refute" them or said I wasn't self-absorbed. Yes, both sides' observations can be mutually correct. That was the point! What I said was that others [NT's] have their own ways of being selfish (whether it's caled "absorbed", "involved" "interest", etc), and thus should not judge the neurodiverse so hard and try so hard to fix us all the time. And people who do that always take the least pushback as rejecting everything they say! (And yet we're the ones being "corrected" for thinking like that! It's not that I'm saying we don't do it, or should not have to grow out of it; it's that many people who are so quick to push us to "grow" often act like they have no room to grow, in their dealings with us, and just want to pontificate the way for us to grow). I said the last time, "There's two people here having a discussion (not a counselling session), both imperfect, and with room to grow, and who need to hear the other's perspective!" So just as I said, we're talking past each other. You're still talking about my need to change something, and all the while illustrating my point of the one sidedness of this issue. So can you see that you have made some 'cognitive distortions' of your own here? (and that does not mean I have not made them!)

 

[Matthias]

Everyone has biases that can result in misunderstandings. I've heard so many people whine and make excuses to avoid following good advice that I naturally interpreted what you wrote as you doing the same thing. When people criticize, judge, or offer advice I don't concern myself with finding faults in them. I evaluate it to determine whether it might be true. If it's not, I simply ignore it. If it might be true, I work to become a better person. I love being judged since it can't hurt me but can only help me become a better person.

 

[Eric B]

That's a good ideal, but from what I've seen, in practice, very few people are really 'there', NT or ND. Even if they claim to be, they still do not accept everything or just anything someone might say about them, and will defend themselves, often strongly. That's a natural boundary we all have. And in that defensive state, it's going to be hard to evaluate if it's true.
The other person or people could truly have been too harsh, or justifying unfit punishments on what they're saying, (so it CAN 'hurt' you, and this is the point often ignored) and if it's “true” (or even if it's not true, but we're not to defend ourselves), then does this set a precedent that it's OK to treat you like that if you have a “flaw” or make a mistake? (And that, real or not. And especially if they do the same things themselves, perhaps in different ways. Is it right, or is it wrong, then?) I'm looking at CONSEQUENCES, not just the “judgement” in itself.
And it's true that a lot of people second guess “excuses” in others, and then respond accordingly, and this is why I mention 'grace', because we ultimately don't know what's inside the other person, and could be mistaken.

Where I believe the autism kicks in, is that we are misunderstood more (since we think so differently in numerous ways, and it's not all “distortions”), and then judged for it, and then people try to “fix” us (often in an overboard way), and when that fails, just get annoyed that we don't just “listen and try to grow”.
My point here is that this is very frustrating.

 

[Matthias]

People who think something negative about you are going to treat you differently because of it. That consequence of their judgment will occur even if they keep their opinion to themselves. I think the stress of not being able to figure out why people ignore, dislike, or exclude me is worse than the pain of someone telling me what they think about me.