Understanding how other people work

[L4ur3n]

I've never understood the way people obsess over their friends, friendship groups, and social status, especially in cases where they clearly don't even particularly like the people they surround themselves with.

As an example, a friend of mine is involved in this particular friend group in which they have a vicious argument almost every day (always between the boys and girls because the boys are unfortunately extremely sexist). She complains about the group not sticking up for her and about the constant arguments to me all the time, but if I say "just leave" she defends them, and everything is always fine the next day as if the argument never happened. This is a pattern I see in so many people I know - they complain, do nothing about it, and then are surprised when they keep getting treated poorly. I've asked people why they do this, and they say "it's harder than you think" but I can't understand that because I cut myself off from people almost too quickly.

I don't know if I make sense, but it's just a constant thing I see every single day with so many people. Do any of you guys notice this?

 

[Matthias]

People have a strong need to feel connected and belong so they're willing to put up with stuff you mentioned because being alone would make them feel much worse.

When people feel rejected when they were very young (baby, toddler, or early childhood), they'll experience painful emotions that are overwhelming and the only way they can cope is to suppress those emotions, learn to be content alone, and avoid everything that reminds them of it. Although they don't feel like they need people, they're often very sensitive to being criticized because deep down they need people and want to feel close and connected to other people. If they avoid people so they won't experience painful emotions, they often end up depressed or anxious because their need to belong hasn't been met.

 

[Misery]

Herd tendency. I often also refer to it as the hive mind.

NTs tend to have this apparently desperate need to be "connected", even if those connections are awful, dangerous, harmful, whatever. Why? I have no bloody clue. Seems dumb to me.

If left disconnected though, they falter about and tend to fall into depression, because reasons.

It also has rather unfortunate side effects, such as the tendency to not actually think for themselves when making important decisions, but instead deciding on a particular choice simply because every other idiot is doing it.

For me, when I think about the whole autism thing... I feel like I dodged a bullet. Or a hail of cannonballs.

Because I could have been like THEM.

 

[Au Naturel]

They want to be connected because the last million or so years of evolution killed off people who weren't part of a tribal group. Those who weren't killed off quickly had a very small chance of reproducing. It isn't a decision on the part of an individual. it is a fundamental instinct.

Time was when to be exiled - or even just to be shunned - was considered a punishment as bad as death.

 

[Thinx]

They want to be connected because the last million or so years of evolution killed off people who weren't part of a tribal group. Those who weren't killed off quickly had a very small chance of reproducing. It isn't a decision on the part of an individual. it is a fundamental instinct.

Time was when to be exiled - or even just to be shunned - was considered a punishment as bad as death.

But as always this kind of 'accepted fact' is based on history of the majority, where minority experience is not recorded. You are talking about NTs. In so far as many NDs in earlier times may have wanted this, I think it would have been for safety needs, which are at the base of the hierarchy of needs.

As an alternative to death or being shunned so that we couldn't easily meet our survival needs, most of us would still choose a measure of connection. But other than that, many of us have a preference to be minimally connected.

 

[Suzanne]

I keep away from things like that and only befriend my sex, who are of my faith, so keeps things clean and uncluttered.

I have perhaps 30 in my friend's list and have "been friends" with them for many years.

Of course, my age also helps to dictate wisdom or not, as younger ones, even in my faith, struggle with what you are describing, but they have much information from my faith, to help them balance things out.

 

[Tom]

I often find that animals can provide an easier to understand model of people behavior. In this case I believe what you are looking at is called 'Pecking Order' in chickens. And it is far from stable. At least some chickens will cause drama on almost a daily basis due to a very strong nature to move up the order (ie status) a notch or two. And conversely other chickens will peck (ie. pick on) lower ones, often arbitrarily, to reassert their higher position. Generally in nature, the higher up the ladder you are the more likely you are to get the best food, lodging and opportunity to reproduce, etc.

 

[Giraffes]

I often find that animals can provide an easier to understand model of people behavior. In this case I believe what you are looking at is called 'Pecking Order' in chickens. And it is far from stable. At least some chickens will cause drama on almost a daily basis due to a very strong nature to move up the order (ie status) a notch or two. And conversely other chickens will peck (ie. pick on) lower ones, often arbitrarily, to reassert their higher position. Generally in nature, the higher up the ladder you are the more likely you are to get the best food, lodging and opportunity to reproduce, etc.

View attachment 64389

Just wanted to say Tom what a joy it is often, to have your comments and perspectives, you frequently make me laugh thank-you.

 

[Au Naturel]

But as always this kind of 'accepted fact' is based on history of the majority, where minority experience is not recorded. You are talking about NTs. In so far as many NDs in earlier times may have wanted this, I think it would have been for safety needs, which are at the base of the hierarchy of needs.

As an alternative to death or being shunned so that we couldn't easily meet our survival needs, most of us would still choose a measure of connection. But other than that, many of us have a preference to be minimally connected.

I'm talking about evoltionary imperatives and not learned behaviors that could override such. It is easy to learn to dislike people

I don't know how much of my own voluntary social disconnection is because I inherited a desire to be alone and how much is because I learned to associate attempts at socialization with failure at a very early age. Like maybe kindergarten.

My belief is that introversion is easiy heritable but really strong aversion to social contact would be quickly extracted from the gene pool. It would seriously impact reproductive potential. (Got nothing to do with who wrote the history books.) Strong social aversion is probably a painful lesson on top of a natural introversion and most introverts do not develop it.

Life in a paleothic tribe might not be so jarring to someone with autism and more conducive to hanging out as part of an extended family. Having Aspie genes distributed through a tribe could even have evolutionary benefits. I rather doubt that today's ASD-1 experience mirrors that of paleoAspie.

 

[Au Naturel]

I often find that animals can provide an easier to understand model of people behavior. In this case I believe what you are looking at is called 'Pecking Order' in chickens. And it is far from stable. At least some chickens will cause drama on almost a daily basis due to a very strong nature to move up the order (ie status) a notch or two. And conversely other chickens will peck (ie. pick on) lower ones, often arbitrarily, to reassert their higher position. Generally in nature, the higher up the ladder you are the more likely you are to get the best food, lodging and opportunity to reproduce, etc.

View attachment 64389

Yup! Pecking order is seen in every social animal from wolves to chimpanzees. In humans pecking order is determined by social constructs. The ability to physically dominate, inteligence, family ties, and seniority all play a role but for most people, it is a matter of social skill. What kinds of connections you have and how good are you at convincing other people to agree to your ideas.

I am doomed.

 

[Fino]

We all seek to experience again and again particular social paradigms based on early experiences, such as a conflict-ridden relationship with one's mother causing one to continually create conflict-ridden relationships in order to feel secure in what's familiar.

 

[Thinx]

I'm talking about evoltionary imperatives and not learned behaviors that could override such. It is easy to learn to dislike people

I don't know how much of my own voluntary social disconnection is because I inherited a desire to be alone and how much is because I learned to associate attempts at socialization with failure at a very early age. Like maybe kindergarten.

My belief is that introversion is easiy heritable but really strong aversion to social contact would be quickly extracted from the gene pool. It would seriously impact reproductive potential. (Got nothing to do with who wrote the history books.) Strong social aversion is probably a painful lesson on top of a natural introversion and most introverts do not develop it.

Life in a paleothic tribe might not be so jarring to someone with autism and more conducive to hanging out as part of an extended family. Having Aspie genes distributed through a tribe could even have evolutionary benefits. I rather doubt that today's ASD-1 experience mirrors that of paleoAspie.

Yes I understood what you were talking about. And still disagree despite that. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, of course and although I disagree with what you say, I would strongly defend your right to say it.

It's not an either/or anyway, both these points could be relevant to what happened. Evolution was a chancy thing, where at one point the wee fish that would become us, had to hide amongst boulders to avoid the big creatures, and might not have survived at that point.

I definitely would not think that everyone wants to be social because of instinct, or to the same degree, and if you think about it, back when people had to be social or eaten by other animals etc, they were not in a position to express their higher selves except sporadically with paint in caves etc, as opposed to now when further up on the hierarchy of needs we can express our need to be less social without being eaten by a predator. Usually.

Also, plenty here have already reproduced before hoping to get some alone time, or realising its best for them, and further, I think we would always have been useful to the NTS even if we lived on our own in a cave up the track, they would come to us for stuff because we'd be evolving gadgets and lighting fires etc. To keep off predators and survive in peace.

And those details were not recorded. Amen.

 

[Progster]

I've seen this in my family relationships too, or in other people's friendships. If someone upsets me, it really affects me and I find it harder to move on. It festers, and I find that I'm no longer able to talk to that person and cut myself off from them. In my partner's family, there is a family member who is abusive to both of us. I no longer have contact with her, but my partner continues to do so despite some really vicious verbal abuse. It seems that people are more able to get past arguments and move on than we are.

I have never belonged to a friendship group, all my friendships have bee with individuals, never a group. People don't like change, and perhaps it's like a river that you have crossed half way; they have got in it too far and invested too much emotionally, so it's as hard to go back as it is to go forward.

When I see or watch other people talking, it seems to me like they have a secret kind of communication like a a telepathy that they share and I don't, so I'm always left on the outside and I find it hard to understand the dynamics. They 'feel' each other and they feel the group, like a 6th sense, and I just don't have that. So for me it's a minefield, I'm just not going to go there.

 

[Moonhart44]

This is how i feel with people who have long time friends. I see people with friends that theyve known for 10 or more years and are only in contact with them because of that fact, not because they necessarily enjoy their company. i will say, however, that i broke up with a friend like that, and i miss her a lot and have a lot of dreams about it. so i would say there is an emotional factor that youre not relating to because you have not experienced it yet. As much as those friends complain about the the bad friend, they are just not telling you about all the good stuff. i think people dont know how to talk about good things sometimes. they rather complain.

 

[Magna]

...Also, plenty here have already reproduced before hoping to get some alone time, or realising its best for them, and further, I think we would always have been useful to the NTS even if we lived on our own in a cave up the track, they would come to us for stuff because we'd be evolving gadgets and lighting fires etc. To keep off predators and survive in peace.

And those details were not recorded. Amen.

This is true and has been recorded in the many "hermits" or "holy men" that literally did live in caves or led lives of chosen solitude in prayer through the centuries. There are a good number of saints who were hermits by choice and people from the surrounding areas would seek them out for advice, etc.

 

[Khendra]

Oh yeah. I have no problem ghosting and completely leaving those kinds of situations, but other people stay in them and gripe endlessly about them. In my mind, it makes sense to either try and solve the problem, and if that doesn't work, then get out and leave. But most people don't do either! Perhaps it's our autistic sense of black-and-white thinking, and inability to tolerate much ambiguity, that makes us so "hyper logical" in these cases.

 

[Au Naturel]

There's the sunk costs fallacy. An investor sinks a million dollars into an investment. The project suddenly appears to be unprofitable. The wise investor cuts their losses, recovers what they can, and moves on. The not-so-wise investor can't do this and insists they've invested so much they can't stop now.

Emotional investment is very similar. If a relationship is bad and going to stay bad, all the time and engergy you've invested is irelevent. But peple will continue on, unable to let go of that which is no longer theirs. They've incorporated that failed investment as a part of their identity and cutting it loose is like amputating a gangrenous finger. Already dead and potentially deadly but they can't bring themseleves to chop it off.

 

[Rae Ray]

Herd tendency. I often also refer to it as the hive mind.

NTs tend to have this apparently desperate need to be "connected", even if those connections are awful, dangerous, harmful, whatever. Why? I have no bloody clue. Seems dumb to me.

If left disconnected though, they falter about and tend to fall into depression, because reasons.

It also has rather unfortunate side effects, such as the tendency to not actually think for themselves when making important decisions, but instead deciding on a particular choice simply because every other idiot is doing it.

For me, when I think about the whole autism thing... I feel like I dodged a bullet. Or a hail of cannonballs.

Because I could have been like THEM.

View attachment 64386

True That.

 

[zozie]

But as always this kind of 'accepted fact' is based on history of the majority, where minority experience is not recorded. You are talking about NTs. In so far as many NDs in earlier times may have wanted this, I think it would have been for safety needs, which are at the base of the hierarchy of needs.

As an alternative to death or being shunned so that we couldn't easily meet our survival needs, most of us would still choose a measure of connection. But other than that, many of us have a preference to be minimally connected.

These days I think more and more of fairy tales accounting the hag who had a hut at the edge of a village, dispensing wisdom, maybe being a little bit scary, and offering healing for those who would dare to venture to her home on the outskirts.

 

[Au Naturel]

But as always this kind of 'accepted fact' is based on history of the majority, where minority experience is not recorded. You are talking about NTs. In so far as many NDs in earlier times may have wanted this, I think it would have been for safety needs, which are at the base of the hierarchy of needs.

As an alternative to death or being shunned so that we couldn't easily meet our survival needs, most of us would still choose a measure of connection. But other than that, many of us have a preference to be minimally connected.

When the Amish shun a person they aren't taking away their ability to survive. They are taking away their ability to socialize. For most humans that is an extremely painful condition. It leads to depression and despair. There will always be some who can handle it better than others. Like any other human trait, it is distributed on a bell curve.