Tried To Make Friends, Told To Get Lost, Basically

[Boogs]

@Boogs

Agree. The story is incomplete and internally inconsistent.

But I'm a believer in applying "Occam's Razor" rather than starting from "1 in a million" exceptions
And Occam's Razor indicates that the probable cause of the temporary group instability was the external event.

Not arguing at all, though personally I can think of so many possibilities, from maleficent (in some way) to completely innocent and just unfortunate coincidence.
Occam's razor struggles for me in this case - too many to choose from.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that focussing on what happened with respect to them is usually unhelpful, because there are so many possible options and combinations it's simply impossible to guess correctly (whether an educated guess or not).
Any conclusion thus come to is unlikely to be correct or is at least partly incorrect, and risks going down dead-end rabbit holes. Better to think on one's own reactions to it rather than the group or people involved, because that's something that person can treat as being objective (or as objective as can be) as it resides in themselves, not a bunch of strangers.

e.g.
You feel a strong element of rejection and dismay following an event such as described.
Instead of dwelling on why those people behaved like that, why not dwell on why a bunch of strangers had such a powerful and negative effect. Is it because of whom they are? If they were different people doing the same, would it change anything (unlikely).
So it's something that could re-occur with another group, so understanding the specifics of what happened in that group, why not focus on the specifics that lead to it happening in the first place.
Such as learning that staking your mental well being on a bunch of random strangers isn't the best/safest way forward in joining a new community, for some people? (that's not my judgement here, just trying to give an example).
Maybe also dwelling on the fact that as such a painful experience it tells you something about your own needs and desires, in this case regards building relationships of various sorts. i.e. it tells you it's important to yourself, but that you may need a better way to achieve what you want.

I've always learnt more from my mistakes/failures (call them what you wish) than any so called successes.

 

[thejuice]

Such as learning that staking your mental well being on a bunch of random strangers isn't the best/safest way forward in joining a new community, for some people?

I'd say it's fairly normal to be devastated by a rejection like that, unless you've built up the callouses from previous exclusion over the years.
One universal truth, at the very least when we are young:
"We all love ourselves more than others but care more about their opinion than our own"

 

[thejuice]

I agree that an outsider making a cold approach to people with an established, firm group identity is almost always going to result in a hostile 'othering'. Like the Westener approaching an isolated tribe you hear about in the news very occasionally. We self appointed civilised types are more primitive than we'd like to believe.

 

[Boogs]

We self appointed civilised types are more primitive than we'd like to believe.

I think there's a subconscious cautiousness in this kind of interaction. As a rule a group will want to assess a stranger before deciding how to behave towards them. They more likely welcome them in provisionally, if only to take their measure. To reject someone out of hand without knowing who they are and what they may represent can be dangerous to a group. This isn't conscious decision making, it's instinctive, and obviously environment affects that. but a strange group welcoming someone in doesn't automatically mean they are friendly even though they may appear to be so.

 

[thejuice]

Yes I hadn't considered that.

 

[Hypnalis]

Some groups are inclusive, but many are not.

For example last time I stayed with relatives with a 2-year-old, and went out with mother and child, I had a lot of women come up and talk. All women with kids of around the same age of course The guardians talk while the kids have fun with each other - it's worked well for everyone.

And in the past I've been invited into (or invited others into) "pickup" sporting activities. And e.g. hiking in rough country is very friendly regardless of group size and makeup (at least where I was brought up).

But groups in a park inside a city, with no activity that's obviously sharable by everyone - I may have forgotten some isolated cases, but I have no memory of ever joining a group of 8+ people, or inviting anyone else into such a group.

This is why I think one of the anomalous aspects of OPs experience is that they permitted him to join them.

 

[Boogs]

Yes I hadn't considered that.

Yet it doesn't mean I'm right (in this case) either!

The deepest evolved instincts and behaviours are usually the one's that impact the most and at an emotional rather than intellectual level, but are hardest to see for what they are (unsurprisingly, intuitions being subconscious in original, and autistic people often being a bit rubbish at interpreting them correctly (or at all) in others.

Long long before I even suspected anything regards autistic traits in myself, I always knew there was something I missed in terms of inclusion.
The way a riot flows like a flock of birds or water going down a slope, and yet I'd be the rock in the middle around which everyone flowed, while I looked on in wonderment as to what they were doing, what were they following, what cues and clues were they picking up on? Why?
The way a crowd at a sports match become one with the failures and successes of their team, and how strange it was to see this in others, and yet feel nothing myself. The game itself just an abstract pattern formed from a rule set.

I found an individual to be far more pleasant company than a group. Even a group of two individuals becomes something other. The whole becomes more than the sum of it's parts, and something new emerges. A group is an 'animal' in itself with it's own behaviours and rules. the moment those individuals have a common tie they change while in the influence of that group.

 

[thejuice]

Long long before I even suspected anything regards autistic traits in myself, I always knew there was something I missed in terms of inclusion.

I just knew that when I approached people, they weren't receptive. When I was a kid I assumed it was because I was the giant who'd been kept down a year. I also assumed it was because I was a boring homebody, with my narrow interests, computer games and drums

The way a crowd at a sports match become one with the failures and successes of their team, and how strange it was to see this in others, and yet feel nothing myself. The game itself just an abstract pattern formed from a rule set.

I had that as child, being sent to bed in tears after cursing at England being beaten by Argentina IIRC. It is puzzling seeing men cry at football or genuinely hating and wanting to deck or even kill someone for supporting another team.
The level of hysteria surrounding the England football team in the late 90s and 00s has died down a lot, probably because the football is so dire and the players and managers have had all their charisma 'PR trained' out of them. So you're left with the reality that you're supporting fabulously rich, out of touch, cheating brats with the personality of a lamp post.

As @Hypnalis says, football falls under the "men's arena of stupidity".

I found an individual to be far more pleasant company than a group. Even a group of two individuals becomes something other. The whole becomes more than the sum of it's parts, and something new emerges. A group is an 'animal' in itself with it's own behaviours and rules. the moment those individuals have a common tie they change while in the influence of that group.

Ever had the experience of a friend changing it up on you when in a group? A friend to you in private, that turns into a snake when corrupted by the group dynamic. Either they're a weak minded, easily influenced follower or they maliciously lead and manipulate the group to turn on you.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

Problem is with situations like this is what does one do the next time one sees them.
If one goes out of ones way to avoid them they would be upset. If one says "Hi" as one passes they may take offence.

I think in this case a polite, noncommittal nod would be appropriate. It shows you're not angry or resentful, but aren't asking for anything and you understand the situation.

 

[Pats]

Yes, but just casting a person away without even a single consolodation or explanation, after they already eagerly spent over an hour of their time devoting themselves to giving you company to hopefully make new friends (thus imprinting themselves onto you), after you yourselves allowed them to isnt... Do people not consider at all how other people feel? They KNEW I just moved in and had no friends. Is it really so hard? Dont get people's hopes up that like only to shoot them down.. I was so excited to tell my mom how many friends I had made.

I didnt add this because I didnt think it was relevant, but now I think its no wonder they were inconsiderate, because inconsiderate people typically dont care about the massive heaps of garbage they leave behind (they littered a ton).

I totally agree with you here and I can relate. Going through something similar. I was invited to join a group in whatapp and was so excited to be part of them. I was welcomed into the group with open arms. The people in this group would be talking to each other all day along every day. I've made a couple comments and nothing. I commented that maybe I said the wrong thing or too personal since most didn't know me (though some are past friends in person. I just moved away). Several people responded to that saying, "No, that's what this group is for. We're here for each other. etc etc" So I try again.

It's been a couple weeks since I've even said hi, but today I put in something I had written a while back that was very fitting for this group. It seems everyone has seen it but no one even talked to each other. I feel like they're all waiting for someone else so they can go on with a different subject. Finally tonight someone sent a picture of the sunset so the comments have re-started.

I don't know whether to just give up quietly or tell them off for telling me how welcome I was and not meaning it at all.

 

[Boogs]

football falls under the "men's arena of stupidity".

Or tribalism? And there must be a lot of juicy neurotransmitters kicking off when the games on, that must bring a little je ne sais quoi to the experience.

Either they're a weak minded, easily influenced follower or they maliciously lead and manipulate the group to turn on you.

I think for people with NT traits when it comes to personal interactions have little say when group dynamics start to kick in. I'm quite convinced they have no idea of any change in themselves or others, or not in any rationalised fashion. Little more than "so and so was in a mood today". You have to be outside of or separate from it to be able to see it, if you're part of the group then you are the group and have no mirror to reflect on yourself.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Something similar happened to me many times.

I find it interesting how our society is extremely hypocritical in this matter.

If you are a loner, spend most of the time at home, reading books, playing videogames and such, many people will criticise you. "You are such an asocial. A basement-dweller! A 40yo virgin! Why don't you go outside, meet new people, being more social, touch the grass? We are social animals and it's very unhealthy to be alone all the time! Build some relationships, find some contacts, improve your social skills!"

Ok, so you go outside, meet some people and then they be like "bro, go away, you're weird."

 

[Mr. Stevens]

I think for people with NT traits when it comes to personal interactions have little say when group dynamics start to kick in. I'm quite convinced they have no idea of any change in themselves or others, or not in any rationalised fashion. Little more than "so and so was in a mood today". You have to be outside of or separate from it to be able to see it, if you're part of the group then you are the group and have no mirror to reflect on yourself.

Couldn't we apply that to ourselves as individuals, though? Yet, we can reflect. And people spend time outside of their group even if very group-oriented.

 

[Boogs]

My point is the difference that occurs when more than one person with a commonality will exhibit behaviours you won't see in either individual alone. There's an emergent dynamic in group behaviour, and of course that varies depending on group types too.

Yes, we can reflect, but mostly after the fact, the group dynamics are subconscious behaviour so self awareness is minimal if not absent in the moment. The brain is too wrapped up in juggling the groups dynamics to be able to observe it's own behaviour which is difficult to do anyway. And the bottom line is I doubt many would be motivated to reflect on that. Those that can't intuitively interact with the group in that way (which is a large part of the autism label) are bound to be more aware of this even if unsure why it happens. This what I mean about outside looking in.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

Yes, we can reflect, but mostly after the fact, the group dynamics are subconscious behaviour so self awareness is minimal if not absent in the moment. The brain is too wrapped up in juggling the groups dynamics to be able to observe it's own behaviour which is difficult to do anyway. And the bottom line is I doubt many would be motivated to reflect on that.

How do you know this, though?

Those that can't intuitively interact with the group in that way (which is a large part of the autism label) are bound to be more aware of this even if unsure why it happens. This what I mean about outside looking in.

If we only look in, or never look from without, aren't these both just half the experience?

 

[Boogs]

How do you know this, though?

So tempting to just say "how do we know anything?!" (i.e. we don't! And at some level assumptions must be made ("I drink therefore I am"? )).

I'm sorry to say I doubt I could write anything here, that was readable at least without taking dozens of pages, that would provide my full reasoning for why I believe this. My education is almost entirely self managed, no formal education to be able to match the terminology involved and any formalised processes that have lead to understandings of social interactions. But if you read up about social group behaviour in various areas you should soon start to see commonalities and threads of connection.

Sometimes looking at the more extreme examples can help this - e.g. conspiracy theorists are a good one. They are all about group membership. The conspiracy itself if usually of secondary importance. Try reading up some of the better appraisals of the nature of the phenomenon that look at the psychology of it rather than just debunking the theory. I'm sorry I can't quote references, but I spend much of my leisure time just reading all sorts of topics, jumping from one to another as see the connections forming and want to understand some new aspect I've uncovered.
Most of my opinions (I 'believe' things, I don't 'know' things) have formed from decades of doing this. I can't recall the sources often, but just absorb the semantics (I'm unable to visualise experiential memories or imaginations, only semantics). I'm also good at fact checking and finding good sources (on a scientific basis at least).

So I'm sorry not to be able to provide something you could call a tangible 'proof' (whatever that would be! ), I can only say it's my own thoughts, and I've not come by them quickly or lightly.

If we only look in, or never look from without, aren't these both just half the experience?

Indubitably! But ignoring that point of view from without just because I don't have the other more common point of view won't advance any understanding either.
So, while I as an autistic person (presumably) cannot be in the group to experience it from that side, and am blind to the processes those group members act on intuitively without rationalising (at least in the moment), I can still be aware of those behaviours those group members can't see. Just as they can see my inability to connect and join the group (which is why I can't join the group) even if they don't consciously realise what it is they see, I can see their own behaviour even though I can't see my own.

I can look into the fish tank and see a view the fish can't see, and even though I can't appreciate their view from within the tank, that doesn't invalidate my view from outside the tank?

In fact, to take it a little further, the idea of being able to see everything, all views, is a fallacy, and impossible. Everything from eastern philosophies to western science have determined this, but that doesn't make investigating things invalid or unproductive (or even 'wrong'). More, we can make assumptions about what can't be seen based on the view we can see. (sorry if I'm getting a little abstract).