HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

default HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by melodiccolor on Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:48 pm

Another good blog entry from Denmarkguy: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you.

I fully agree with this blog article.

_________________
Life is complex.  Parts of it are real and parts of it are imaginary.  (read in a novel by Gregory Benford.)

Absurdity is one of the great joys of life.

All you need for a rich life is to see more.
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11759
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Nucky on Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:55 pm

It is a good article, with a lot of valid points.

But what do we do when we don't fit very neatly into ANY group? When our values are so complex and intertwined that no one can really relate to them?


Last edited by Nucky on Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:17 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
Great minds think alike. Greater minds do not.
avatar
Nucky
Admin

Posts : 6140
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : Oakland County, MI

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Dreamspace on Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:23 pm

It is very upsetting for me when someone doesn't take kindly to me, but I have to accept that sometimes it's out of my control. Yes, sometimes I think about what I could have done differently, what little misstep could have caused it, but really, I think focusing on any single thing is a mistake — if it wasn't that little thing, it would have been another. If you have bad chemistry with a person, or they simply have made up their minds about you, then it's only a matter of time before a spark ignites the volatile mixture; the issue is bigger than the catalyst, and that fuel will remain lingering until diffused.

I do my best to get along with everybody and I will make an effort to address any misunderstandings I may have with others, but some people simply have no interest in cooperating and will hear none of it. For me, it is very difficult to understand such people, as I am of an accommodating nature and am very conflict-averse; it's difficult to imagine not wanting to get along with another, let alone insisting upon harboring a grudge over a simple disagreement or faux pas. In such a case where you have already made attempts to take responsibility on your end, you must accept it is outside of your control and ultimately not really your fault. At least, not entirely.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by frmthhrt on Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:00 am

Hmmm...this is the first one of Denmark Guy's article that I don't really relate to...and I am not in any way saying it's wrong, it just doesn't really resonate with me.
While I would agree that I don't like rejection, it's not really ever an issue. People generally seem to like me, and I am only ever myself...I don't try to change to impress someone. I saw my ex-wife do this all the time- she was "The Chameleon": best friends with whoever she was with, and ready to bad mouth people that were best friends until they went out the door, if the new friend did not like them.
I don't need everyone to like me; I would prefer it if they do, but if they don't then they probably are not my kind of people! Life is too short to go around pretending to be someone you are not, or to hang out with people that you don't relate to.
Maybe it's being comfortable in one's skin, or not being needy, or maybe just self-confidence...if you don't like me, that's your problem! Very Happy
avatar
frmthhrt

Posts : 2050
Join date : 2010-08-25
Age : 52
Location : Heaven on Earth, Canada

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by paintdeer30 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:07 am

oh I agree with this article too. I'm currenlty in this situation but have realized that it is their problem and not mine. There are several people who I see at social events montly and their behavior is very odd to me. Sometimes if I try to make a converstation they seem to be irratated or put out an attitude towards to me. So I just let it go and I don't approach to them anymore. It's especailly hurtful when I did knew this people from grade school or high school.

I just have to keep on a positive side and be the most fun and postive person for new people who never been there. I usually click well with new people.

Also it does depend what kind of social situation you are in. If you're into books and wine and you're going to a sporting social it may not click well.

Plus there will always be that someone who already has a set of friends they see regulary and may not be interested in meeting new people due to the small talk and the pains of getting to know each other.

Another reason is some people feel threatned by new people for whatever reasons, looks too smart, or looks just like their old co-worker who was really mean to them so they prefer not to assiocate with that kind. It's just my thought.

I'm generally open and kind to everyone but I realized there are some that I need to not be so kind or so open with; such as guys that want to date me (not interested) or someone who wants me to help them with other activities that I'm not really interested in. I have my limits so maybe other people have their own limits as well. It's a signal to us that we need to respect them and move on to other people.

but yes sometimes I just wish everyone would be as welcoming and kind and be one happy family. study interesting article
avatar
paintdeer30

Posts : 210
Join date : 2011-01-18
Age : 34

View user profile http://anniesartphotography.shutterfly.com/pictures

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Wildfire1992 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:39 am

Thanks a lot for posting Mel.

I actually really needed to read this. Defiantly goes side by side with what I've been gong through lately at work with trying to "fit in" with my co-workers. Even to the point where lately I've been trying to figure out a way to find people to hang out int he way "normal" people do.

So thanks a lot for posting, helped put things in perspective. Going to bookmark it.
avatar
Wildfire1992

Posts : 128
Join date : 2012-06-09
Age : 25
Location : Ankeny, Iowa, America, Earth, Milky Way

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Riana on Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:01 am

I used to be very much like that, especially in my teens. Always trying to please and to get people to like me and then feeling frustrated because eventhough I was doing everything I could, they still didn't like me or wanted to spend time with me.

There are people I just don't connect with. They instantly take on a dislike towards me, and that's that. Most of them used to be in my class in highschool too. It used to make me feel inadequate, also because my mother was always commenting on my inability to make friends and that there was nothing wrong with those other people, so why couldn't I get them to like me? What was wrong with me? etc.

I have one good friend here at the moment, and two others that I see and talk to on occasion. I also spend two or three days a week with my boyfriend. I wouldn't mind having one or two good friends more, but not at any cost. I want to stay true to myself, and if that means less friends, so be it. I'm tired of blaming myself and edging myself on to be more likable. In fact, I know now that getting to know yourself more, and valuing yourself more is the surest road to finding people who actually fit you, and who are worth your time. That doesn't mean I don't still worry about how other people perceive me, and what they think of me, but we are all a work in progress Wink
avatar
Riana

Posts : 538
Join date : 2012-05-24
Age : 26
Location : Belgium

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by melodiccolor on Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:13 pm

We just had an interesting chat that relates to this topic; the flip side. Enjoy.

Anarkandi says
i notice having an emotional investment in things gets you to have hopes and expectations for it to happen
and ignoring those expectations is the same as neglecting the emotional investment

Melodiccolor says
I don't bother to analyze like that
I jsut feel and go with it
if I have an expectation I tend to simply enjoy it
if it doesn't pan out, I let it go
I've always done it that way

Anarkandi says
trying to force something through is to break that empathic bond too, in a way we discussed a few days ago
about controlling others

Melodiccolor says
yes

Anarkandi says
so just allow
allow
allow ^^

Melodiccolor says
yes
we can ahve hopes but allow
and be at peace with however it turns out

Anarkandi says
yes

Melodiccolor says
that ties into the article peter did on wanting everyone to like you
the flip side

Anarkandi says
definitely
i related it that way
I used to feel terrible if people disliked me

Melodiccolor says
mostly when young, a child, it used to bewilder me
then as I got older, I just accepted it sadly
then I learned it had to do with them and not me
I became really good about letting stuff go along the way

Anarkandi says
yes
important thing
not to form friendships out of fear
Anarkandi says
that's the hallway to bad relationships

Melodiccolor says
absolutely, or out of wanting to fit in

Anarkandi says
because of fear

Melodiccolor says
not just fear
but that is integral yes
when you don't fear, it's much easier
fearing hurt I think
and rejection

_________________
Life is complex.  Parts of it are real and parts of it are imaginary.  (read in a novel by Gregory Benford.)

Absurdity is one of the great joys of life.

All you need for a rich life is to see more.
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11759
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by rombomb on Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:07 pm

I've got some thoughts on this. I had a discussion on fb that started with someone suggesting that psychopathy and Autism/Asperger's is related and the discussion took a slight tangent to the topic of this thread.


Someone said:

I don't think Asperger's kids have a huge disadvantage.


I said:

Well, what I've been explaining implies that there is no Autism/Aspergers. Its a label, not a disease. The label is used for social control. Regarding the "disadvantage", I disagree. If one's goal is to mimic the social vibrations of most people, then yes people who don't know how to read facial expressions well are at a disadvantage. But lets question the *goal* itself. Why is that a good goal? Its not. I reject it. Its immoral. And that is my right to reject it. Why should society impose its will against my will by labeling me and forcing me to do things I don't want to do? I thought we live in a free society!!!


He said:

I do think as a parent a person might want their child to have an easier life by being able to fit in to social norms better, and particularly if the child finds it frustrating not to fit in, then helping them do so might be within their own will. But coercing somebody to "fit in" when they do not wish to do so would be immoral, absolutely. So I see your point and agree with that! In my case, although I frequently don't care about fitting in, it did make life a lot easier for me when I learned some basic skills I didn't even know I was lacking, so I was able to enjoy social interaction when I wanted to, but that is a lot different from being coerced into it against one's will, which is very frequently the case.


I said:

But, why does anybody want to "fit in"? -- why do they crave other people's approval? -- why do they want to be accepted by a group? Instead of having a goal of social acceptance, why don't they instead have a goal of living morally? One might say that he can have both goals, but he'd be wrong.

Either he seeks to do the right thing, or he seeks to do what other's will accept. Sometimes these two goals don't conflict, in which case there's no problem, and seeking acceptance was unnecessary. But what about when these goals do conflict? How should one choose which goal matters? Should he choose (1) the right thing that won't be accepted by the group, or (2) the wrong thing that will be accepted by the group? If he chooses (1), then the group is immoral and he shouldn't want acceptance from immoral people. If he chooses (2), then he's choosing immorality, and to make matter's worse he's fueling the group's immorality.

So why should anyone want to be socially accepted?


He said:

Indeed, I do believe moral living is more important than social acceptance by far, and some of the greatest humans of all time were not socially accepted at all, even tortured and executed. However, it would be immoral of me to refuse someone their free will if they wish to seek social acceptance. So if I had a child who was sad because he had no friends, I would do what I could to try to facilitate his with to have friends. I would never advise him to violate his integrity, but I would try to help him learn the basics of human interaction that he might be lacking, such as paying attention to people's eyes and watching for subtle queues in their movements that can alert one to their internal state, and to focus carefully on their internal state and be responsive to that. It is wrong to subjugate one's integrity to the wishes of others of course, but it is right to be concerned with their feelings and sensitive to their inner state, and a child with trouble making friends may often discover that by training himself in these skills, he needs not sacrifice his integrity at all in order to find lasting and rich friendships. That has certainly been the case with me. I still don't care for what may be called "social acceptance" in general. But I do value being part of my community, of enjoying the affection of others, and being the focus of their concern when I am in need. So friendships have vastly improved my life, and I am so thankful to the teachers and loved ones who helped me improve my skills and taught me to train carefully on those queues that, in my childhood, I was not naturally attuned to notice as easily as others might.


I said:

But, if a parent has a child who was sad and the child says its because he has no friends, one thing that should be discussed is whether or not he's happy while alone. Since everybody is alone sometimes, everybody should learn how to enjoy that time alone. And then, when the child learns to have fun while alone, he may not be sad that he doesn't have friends. But, if he's still sad about that, the parent can help. But, focusing on social vibrations shouldn't be the goal because that relies on assuming what people are thinking without them actually saying what they're thinking. Instead, the child should learn how to interact with people with discussion. Two people having a discussion using the English language can be much more accurate about each other's preferences than two people reading each other's facial expressions, assuming that both people are willing to discuss and that both are not assuming that the other person should be reading his facial expressions. These social vibrations do not have the sophistication to be able to learn each other's preferences -- only the use of a written language can do that. And if people don't know each other's preferences, then that is how they hurt each other, because they trample over each other's preferences without knowing that they are trampling. One might say that thats what social vibrations are for, to tell others what they don't approve of, but consider this: If I do X, and a friend of mine frowns right after I did it, that means he's telling me that he doesn't like something about X. But which part? How am I supposed to know which part about X he doesn't like if he doesn't tell me in a language that could explain it? A frown doesn't provide enough detail to know what his preference is.

Thoughts/criticism?

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by melodiccolor on Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:08 pm

My thoughts on that Rombom; I think I more agree with your friend. Humans need connections to thrive, we are hardwired that way and denied that, tend to end up mentally ill. That said, being taught the tools that help with connecting and making friends is invaluable and will serve a child well throughout life in so many ways. This is a far different thing than forcing a child to conform to preconceived norms.

A child should be provided tools and opportunities to grow and then those doing so should step back and allow the child to become more fully the person they are. To deny those tools would be to condemn that child to a life of possible isolation where thriving becomes almost impossible.

_________________
Life is complex.  Parts of it are real and parts of it are imaginary.  (read in a novel by Gregory Benford.)

Absurdity is one of the great joys of life.

All you need for a rich life is to see more.
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11759
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Dreamspace on Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:09 pm

The ability to read emotions and respond appropriately to other human beings is not the mere result of a social construct, but rather evolution. It will be difficult to build rapport with others if you can't get on the same wavelength as other human beings. If you have autism, it may be more difficult for you to do this; it's of course going to be upsetting to think you may have such a limitation. But to deny the value of friendships and human ties simply because you have such difficulties is a mistake.

It is easy for people of certain mindsets to see interacting with groups as a threat to their integrity or identity. For such people, their rigid principles are seen as incongruous with the collective's values, thus they would either need to be bent, discarded or at times ignored in order to assimilate to the group. In such a case, the individual typically decides that it is immoral to consort with others; groups of humans are invariably wicked.

In actuality, there is an internal conflict within the individual: His desire to socialize is seen as something incompatible with his identity, and thus he does everything he can to deny this aspect of himself. He tells himself he does not want to fit in, that someone who seeks acceptance is pathetic, needy and lacking in integrity, and that he will exercise forbearance as not to compromise his integrity or identity — yet it is not society which threatens to oppress him. It is his dominant aspect, his implacable beliefs and idealism, which has subjugated an aspect of himself; it has been allowed to run rampant, and left unchecked it has autocratically seized control and blinded him.

It is this internecine relationship between the dominant and repressed aspects which will undo him: His own values and principles will become increasingly inflexible, subjective and warped; and he will unwittingly find himself influenced by his repressed aspect, as without conscious acknowledgement and awareness, it will take on a will of its own and, in lieu of conscious regulation, subvert the dominant aspect in an insidious manner, which is most difficult to recognize. Thus the irony is that these desires, if left latent and unrealized, will serve as a source of corruption nonetheless.

I am speaking from personal experience.

There will come a time where there will be a conflict between your beliefs and your group's actions or rhetoric, and there you will have the option to conform or dissent. Here it will be a conscious choice; you may decide how it is you are influenced by others. But I will say that not all influence is negative — most isn't, if you are among healthy individuals. Individuals of such a mindset tend to have very resilient identities and beliefs, anyhow; change will be slow and tedious, and if anything will be less than optimal for that individual's health because of this.

So compromising yourself isn't the real danger; there isn't much of a real moral dilemma here. The real fear here, I believe, is that you will be rejected as you are unable to easily adapt to others, and preemptively reject them. Perhaps I am mistaken. But I will admit this is what I have done, and what I have seen many other like-minded individuals do.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by rombomb on Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:29 am

Dreamspace wrote:The ability to read emotions and respond appropriately to other human beings is not the mere result of a social construct, but rather evolution. It will be difficult to build rapport with others if you can't get on the same wavelength as other human beings. If you have autism, it may be more difficult for you to do this; it's of course going to be upsetting to think you may have such a limitation. But to deny the value of friendships and human ties simply because you have such difficulties is a mistake.
I'm confused. Are you saying that I have that mistake? I don't. I value friendships and that means that I advocate the value of friendships too. What did I say that led you to think otherwise?

Dreamspace wrote:
It is easy for people of certain mindsets to see interacting with groups as a threat to their integrity or identity. For such people, their rigid principles are seen as incongruous with the collective's values, thus they would either need to be bent, discarded or at times ignored in order to assimilate to the group. In such a case, the individual typically decides that it is immoral to consort with others; groups of humans are invariably wicked.
Its not immoral to have friends. And its not true that a person who isn't willing to do what he considers to be an immoral act with the aim of social acceptance won't have friends. I don't know why you think that.

Dreamspace wrote:
In actuality, there is an internal conflict within the individual: His desire to socialize is seen as something incompatible with his identity, and thus he does everything he can to deny this aspect of himself. He tells himself he does not want to fit in, that someone who seeks acceptance is pathetic, needy and lacking in integrity, and that he will exercise forbearance as not to compromise his integrity or identity — yet it is not society which threatens to oppress him. It is his dominant aspect, his implacable beliefs and idealism, which has subjugated an aspect of himself; it has been allowed to run rampant, and left unchecked it has autocratically seized control and blinded him.
Having friendships is not incompatible with unwillingness to commit immoral acts. I don't know why you think otherwise. Are you suggesting that this is a psychological inevitability?

Dreamspace wrote:
It is this internecine relationship between the dominant and repressed aspects which will undo him: His own values and principles will become increasingly inflexible, subjective and warped; and he will unwittingly find himself influenced by his repressed aspect, as without conscious acknowledgement and awareness, it will take on a will of its own and, in lieu of conscious regulation, subvert the dominant aspect in an insidious manner, which is most difficult to recognize. Thus the irony is that these desires, if left latent and unrealized, will serve as a source of corruption nonetheless.

I am speaking from personal experience.
You're making a parochial mistake -- you've taken your experience and generalized to *everybody* that fits your description. Its a mistake because not everybody that fits your description has the ideas that you have. You experienced what you experienced because of your ideas, some of which are mistakes, and not everybody who fits your description has your mistaken ideas.

For example, you said that someone that fits your description will become increasingly inflexible. You haven't explained why you think that would happen. Its a mistake. People should change their preferences when necessary. When is it necessary? When doing otherwise would hurt oneself or others. People should seek common preferences, that means changing one's preferences with the aim of not trampling anyone's preferences -- so as to prevent hurt.

Dreamspace wrote:
There will come a time where there will be a conflict between your beliefs and your group's actions or rhetoric, and there you will have the option to conform or dissent.
No. I define the value of my options by morality, not social acceptance. So my options are the moral and the immoral. If my peers agree with my choice, then there is a side effect of conformity (like when a person stops his car at a red light). If my peers disagree, then there is a side effect of dissenting (like when a person stops going to church). In the later case, my peers can either accept my dissent or shun me. That is their choice.

Dreamspace wrote:
Here it will be a conscious choice; you may decide how it is you are influenced by others. But I will say that not all influence is negative — most isn't,
By influence I'm going to assume that you mean criticism. So lets say I have a choice to make that doesn't involve other people (like whether or not I will continue to go to church). And lets say I want help making my decision, so I seek out a friend asking him for criticism. I'm asking him to look for flaws in my reasoning and to point them out and explain why he thinks they are flaws. And of course I'll have the opportunity to criticize his criticism. And we go back and forth until nobody has any new criticisms. There's more to it than that but this is just a quick description. At the end of this discussion, I maybe persuaded to stop going to church, or to continue going, (or some other variation). Now why would a person seek out a friend's help on making such a decision? Because seeking external criticism is good -- its better than relying on one's own criticism.

Dreamspace wrote:
if you are among healthy individuals. Individuals of such a mindset tend to have very resilient identities and beliefs, anyhow; change will be slow and tedious, and if anything will be less than optimal for that individual's health because of this.

So compromising yourself isn't the real danger; there isn't much of a real moral dilemma here. The real fear here, I believe, is that you will be rejected as you are unable to easily adapt to others, and preemptively reject them. Perhaps I am mistaken. But I will admit this is what I have done, and what I have seen many other like-minded individuals do.
What do you mean by "preemptively reject"?

What do you mean by "easily adapt"? For example, if some friends ask me to go to a bar, I don't care which bar they choose. In this sense, I'm easy to adapt to their preference. But, I do have a preference that is important to me, which is that the bar is not too loud to be able to hear someone speak -- so loud night clubs is not enjoyable for me. So, if my friends want me to join them at a loud night club, they would need to provide me with a criticism of my reasoning for preferring a bar that allows for talking.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by rombomb on Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:31 am

melodiccolor wrote:My thoughts on that Rombom; I think I more agree with your friend. Humans need connections to thrive, we are hardwired that way and denied that, tend to end up mentally ill.

I didn't say that people don't need human relationships. What did I say that led you to think that?

melodiccolor wrote:
That said, being taught the tools that help with connecting and making friends is invaluable and will serve a child well throughout life in so many ways. This is a far different thing than forcing a child to conform to preconceived norms.

A child should be provided tools and opportunities to grow and then those doing so should step back and allow the child to become more fully the person they are. To deny those tools would be to condemn that child to a life of possible isolation where thriving becomes almost impossible.
I'm confused by that. Did you think that I'm advocating for parents to deny children those tools? I'm not and I don't know why you think I am. What did I say that led you to think that?

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by melodiccolor on Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:05 pm

rombomb wrote:
melodiccolor wrote:My thoughts on that Rombom; I think I more agree with your friend. Humans need connections to thrive, we are hardwired that way and denied that, tend to end up mentally ill.

I didn't say that people don't need human relationships. What did I say that led you to think that?

melodiccolor wrote:
That said, being taught the tools that help with connecting and making friends is invaluable and will serve a child well throughout life in so many ways. This is a far different thing than forcing a child to conform to preconceived norms.

A child should be provided tools and opportunities to grow and then those doing so should step back and allow the child to become more fully the person they are. To deny those tools would be to condemn that child to a life of possible isolation where thriving becomes almost impossible.
I'm confused by that. Did you think that I'm advocating for parents to deny children those tools? I'm not and I don't know why you think I am. What did I say that led you to think that?
It's implied by a few things you said such as you thought it was immoral to force people to mimic social vibrations, that it is ok for a child to be alone and not have friends if they want to and by a few other things. My point is often children, who feel rejected, withdraw and end up isolated and unable to connect later. Teaching them the tools needed is vital, and that is not forcing them to be anything. They always have to choice to use the tools or not. Sadly, it is the labeling that society requires in order to provide the correct tools needed for individuals. Autistic/Aspbergers individuals need access to certain tools other groups do not for example.


_________________
Life is complex.  Parts of it are real and parts of it are imaginary.  (read in a novel by Gregory Benford.)

Absurdity is one of the great joys of life.

All you need for a rich life is to see more.
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11759
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Dreamspace on Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:08 pm

rombomb wrote:Its not immoral to have friends. And its not true that a person who isn't willing to do what he considers to be an immoral act with the aim of social acceptance won't have friends. I don't know why you think that.

[…]

Having friendships is not incompatible with unwillingness to commit immoral acts. I don't know why you think otherwise. Are you suggesting that this is a psychological inevitability?

It may be possible to have friends while still not really seeing the value of normative values and behaviors, but it will still be something of an impediment in many of your social dealings. Rather than seeing a need to try and accommodate others, you've decided it was immoral to even make the attempt. I'm sure you feel pressured by it, but are you actively persecuted for it? I don't believe society condemns those who have autism, but autistic people are seen as having social deficiencies.

So if you accidentally upset someone because you failed to read their facial cues, are they really punishing you for having difficulty with these things? No, they aren't thinking in those terms; they only know that they've been hurt or upset. I doubt they are angry at your failure or inability to confirm to social norms, but rather upset at the consequences. I imagine this would be very upsetting for me and hurt my self-esteem, but then I may feel frustrated, like it wasn't fair, and in lieu of guilt I may instead become indignant about how these unjust demands were made of me.

This attitude is not very conducive to making new friends or getting along in everyday social situations, but you may be able to get along with select others well. It's just that you would need to find people who fit a very specific criteria to befriend.

You're making a parochial mistake -- you've taken your experience and generalized to *everybody* that fits your description. Its a mistake because not everybody that fits your description has the ideas that you have. You experienced what you experienced because of your ideas, some of which are mistakes, and not everybody who fits your description has your mistaken ideas.

For example, you said that someone that fits your description will become increasingly inflexible. You haven't explained why you think that would happen. Its a mistake. People should change their preferences when necessary. When is it necessary? When doing otherwise would hurt oneself or others. People should seek common preferences, that means changing one's preferences with the aim of not trampling anyone's preferences -- so as to prevent hurt.

It is actually not a specific belief system but typically a result of information processing that happens on a more fundamental level. The belief system usually just so happens to be built around this foundation. What I am referring to is the INTP mode of processing information: Introverted Thinking (Ti) dominants understand things by refining ideas into building blocks and then building with them in an orderly fashion with all the pieces fitting together in a nice, logical fashion. Consequently, they have the advantage of understanding concepts with a degree of clarity other types simply cannot — which may be very impressive to some — but at the expense of a narrower, more rigid perspective for the same reasons.

What is naturally opposed to this conscious state of mind is, as you may expect, its antipode, Extraverted Feeling (Fe). What is Fe about? It's about being in harmony with others and accomplishing this by being in lockstep with shared feelings and values, observing customs and norms of the group, and it typically strives to be lenitive and accommodating to others. As Ti is most conscious in IxTPs, and Fe the least, they may not always care or even realize how certain sharp observations may in fact be cutting into other's feelings. Or it may be that since they render everything through these 'sharp' tools, they're a bit like Edward Scissorhands: meek and docile, but prone to the occasional… unfortunate accident when attempting to manipulate their fingers in delicate social situations.

My ilk are well known for railing against society for having certain expectations of them which they are ill-equipped to deal with, and rather than recognizing this as their own shortcoming, they instead deflect and say that it's a problem with culture. They often form their own cliques of like-minded individuals who will pharisaically ostracize any who fail to adhere to the beliefs of the group, and will be ousted for voicing their seditious views. Often times these groups absolutely loath culture, brand others who admit to valuing social acceptance as 'desperate', 'pathetic' or lacking 'resolve' or 'integrity', weeding out any who don't enable the asocial lifestyle.

This sort of hypocrisy is, unfortunately, extremely prevalent among the type. Ti value systems are the most rigid of all, and by this same token, IxTPs can at times be extremely judgmental. They're considered Perceiving types in the MBTI system because their lead Extraverted function is undifferentiating, but their dominant function makes judgments about principles — any abstract, rational principle, moral or otherwise. (It may be of interest to note that deontology is the product of an INTP, Immanuel Kant.)

I may have jumped the gun, but you just so happen to fit the INTP profile… and have shown signs of declaring certain collective values as immoral. At a cursory glance, it would seem to fit the bill.

No. I define the value of my options by morality, not social acceptance. So my options are the moral and the immoral. If my peers agree with my choice, then there is a side effect of conformity (like when a person stops his car at a red light). If my peers disagree, then there is a side effect of dissenting (like when a person stops going to church). In the later case, my peers can either accept my dissent or shun me. That is their choice.

So long as you don't ever wind up in a position where you are certain your decisions are always right, or that the other choice is even immoral. If your friends turned their backs on you because you stopped going to church, that would be unfortunate. But how about your friends? If they still go to church or adhere to other mores, are they less ethical? Are you an arbiter of morality or simple making decisions for yourself? Are you passively deciding some people are less righteous than others because their beliefs and choices are incongruous with your subjective belief system? Have you made the mistake of believing your belief system is actually objective and therefore more valid? Are the only ones who may be doing the rejecting them, and not you?

I'm not saying you are guilty of any of these things, but… these do seem to be common mistakes Ti dominants make.

By influence I'm going to assume that you mean criticism. So lets say I have a choice to make that doesn't involve other people (like whether or not I will continue to go to church). And lets say I want help making my decision, so I seek out a friend asking him for criticism. I'm asking him to look for flaws in my reasoning and to point them out and explain why he thinks they are flaws. And of course I'll have the opportunity to criticize his criticism. And we go back and forth until nobody has any new criticisms. There's more to it than that but this is just a quick description. At the end of this discussion, I maybe persuaded to stop going to church, or to continue going, (or some other variation). Now why would a person seek out a friend's help on making such a decision? Because seeking external criticism is good -- its better than relying on one's own criticism.

This is sort of how a Ti deliberation process works. You have a logical continuity which you wish you iron out any logical errors, but if you actually manage to break out of the circular reasoning and examine the substrate this was built upon, you'll see that all of this logic is operating upon a subjective axiom. In other words, you're sort of dead-set on a certain premise. If you can find someone willing to buy into your premise and then go through the illative process of ensuring there are no logical missteps, that's fine… but you are essentially just doing the equivalent of having a fellow programmer manually double-check your code to see if it properly compiles.

In other words, it is abundantly clear that, in your case, everything must be congruous with this Ti value system. Of course, I still do this myself to some extent, and while there may be differences in the belief systems we've built up, I'm sure the way I've presented my line of reasoning is cognate.

But what about values which don't mesh well with this style of thought? Sometimes (but not always) it is difficult for people who use such a logical schema as their compass to understand political correctness, and this may be seen as something that does nothing more than squelch freedom of speech and deride those who are offended by such things as 'stupid'. If we can't make logical sense of it, we may not respect it, and therefore may not see the value of 'censoring' ourselves. Is political correctness simply a force of oppression? You may say you're simply just calling a spade a spade… but it may be hurtful and depreciative, and not observing social etiquette will make it difficult for you to coexist.

What do you mean by "preemptively reject"?

By rationalizing that, because you cannot adapt your values and behaviors to match social expectations, it is simply undesirable to do so. And to say it is outright immoral and to justify it as conscientious objection is sort of rejecting the collective, or any of the collective mindset.

What do you mean by "easily adapt"? For example, if some friends ask me to go to a bar, I don't care which bar they choose. In this sense, I'm easy to adapt to their preference. But, I do have a preference that is important to me, which is that the bar is not too loud to be able to hear someone speak -- so loud night clubs is not enjoyable for me. So, if my friends want me to join them at a loud night club, they would need to provide me with a criticism of my reasoning for preferring a bar that allows for talking.

Yes, and needing to be convinced is a laborious process. This is a preference for following your own reasoning over accommodating the needs of others. It is all right to do as trying to suit the needs of others can be overly stressful; however, it becomes problematic if you don't ever see the need to compromise and simply put these considerations aside for the sake of others from time to time. It is all right to do something 'alogical' or even 'illogical' from time to time.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by rombomb on Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:21 am

melodiccolor wrote:
rombomb wrote:
melodiccolor wrote:My thoughts on that Rombom; I think I more agree with your friend. Humans need connections to thrive, we are hardwired that way and denied that, tend to end up mentally ill.

I didn't say that people don't need human relationships. What did I say that led you to think that?

melodiccolor wrote:
That said, being taught the tools that help with connecting and making friends is invaluable and will serve a child well throughout life in so many ways. This is a far different thing than forcing a child to conform to preconceived norms.

A child should be provided tools and opportunities to grow and then those doing so should step back and allow the child to become more fully the person they are. To deny those tools would be to condemn that child to a life of possible isolation where thriving becomes almost impossible.
I'm confused by that. Did you think that I'm advocating for parents to deny children those tools? I'm not and I don't know why you think I am. What did I say that led you to think that?
It's implied by a few things you said such as you thought it was immoral to force people to mimic social vibrations,
I don't know how to take that. Do you think its moral for a parent to force his child to do something against his will?

melodiccolor wrote:
that it is ok for a child to be alone and not have friends if they want to
I also don't know how to take that. Do you think its moral to force them to do otherwise?

melodiccolor wrote:
and by a few other things.
What other things?

melodiccolor wrote:
My point is often children, who feel rejected, withdraw and end up isolated and unable to connect later. Teaching them the tools needed is vital,
I've said nothing about a child who says he doesn't want friends. What did I say led you to believe that I did?

I think what you're saying is that if a parent believes that his child should know X, parent should persuade him of X. I agree. In this case, X is that having friends is good. So the parent discusses this with his child with the aim of finding the truth, together. The child may be persuaded that friendships are good. So now he values friendship, which means he wants friendship.

melodiccolor wrote:
and that is not forcing them to be anything.
I agree that persuasion is not force. I don't know why you've said this.

melodiccolor wrote:
They always have to choice to use the tools or not. Sadly, it is the labeling that society requires in order to provide the correct tools needed for individuals. Autistic/Aspbergers individuals need access to certain tools other groups do not for example.
What we need is more freedom! Most parents (and all schools) are dictators. Its they who have the problem.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by rombomb on Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:09 am

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Its not immoral to have friends. And its not true that a person who isn't willing to do what he considers to be an immoral act with the aim of social acceptance won't have friends. I don't know why you think that.

[…]

Having friendships is not incompatible with unwillingness to commit immoral acts. I don't know why you think otherwise. Are you suggesting that this is a psychological inevitability?

It may be possible to have friends while still not really seeing the value of normative values and behaviors, but it will still be something of an impediment in many of your social dealings. Rather than seeing a need to try and accommodate others, you've decided it was immoral to even make the attempt.
I don't know how you got that idea from me. I've said that for every human interaction, a common preference should be found. That is one that everybody involved prefers -- which means no one gets hurt because everybody got what they want. How is this not accomodating?

I think you're thinking that not having a goal of social acceptance is incompatible with not wanting anyone to get hurt, but thats wrong. I don't want anyone to get hurt AND this is not a goal of social acceptance -- this is morality.

Dreamspace wrote:
I'm sure you feel pressured by it, but are you actively persecuted for it?
Not pressused and not persecuted.

Dreamspace wrote:
I don't believe society condemns those who have autism, but autistic people are seen as having social deficiencies.

So if you accidentally upset someone because you failed to read their facial cues, are they really punishing you for having difficulty with these things? No, they aren't thinking in those terms; they only know that they've been hurt or upset. I doubt they are angry at your failure or inability to confirm to social norms, but rather upset at the consequences. I imagine this would be very upsetting for me and hurt my self-esteem, but then I may feel frustrated, like it wasn't fair, and in lieu of guilt I may instead become indignant about how these unjust demands were made of me.
Thats why its important to focus on explicitly stating one's preferences rather than hinting at them via social cues. Do you agree?

Dreamspace wrote:
This attitude is not very conducive to making new friends or getting along in everyday social situations, but you may be able to get along with select others well. It's just that you would need to find people who fit a very specific criteria to befriend.
You mean like having some shared values? Sure. We should be selective. We shouldn't befriend anyone just like we shouldn't marry anyone.

Dreamspace wrote:
You're making a parochial mistake -- you've taken your experience and generalized to *everybody* that fits your description. Its a mistake because not everybody that fits your description has the ideas that you have. You experienced what you experienced because of your ideas, some of which are mistakes, and not everybody who fits your description has your mistaken ideas.

For example, you said that someone that fits your description will become increasingly inflexible. You haven't explained why you think that would happen. Its a mistake. People should change their preferences when necessary. When is it necessary? When doing otherwise would hurt oneself or others. People should seek common preferences, that means changing one's preferences with the aim of not trampling anyone's preferences -- so as to prevent hurt.

It is actually not a specific belief system but typically a result of information processing that happens on a more fundamental level. The belief system usually just so happens to be built around this foundation. What I am referring to is the INTP mode of processing information: Introverted Thinking (Ti) dominants understand things by refining ideas into building blocks and then building with them in an orderly fashion with all the pieces fitting together in a nice, logical fashion. Consequently, they have the advantage of understanding concepts with a degree of clarity other types simply cannot — which may be very impressive to some — but at the expense of a narrower, more rigid perspective for the same reasons.
You're talking about conceptualization. *Everybody* does it. I don't think its useful to say that Ti's do it better than others. This is a skill. Everybody has it. Some people have developed the skill better than others. Anybody can improve their skill.

Dreamspace wrote:
What is naturally opposed to this conscious state of mind is, as you may expect, its antipode, Extraverted Feeling (Fe). What is Fe about? It's about being in harmony with others and accomplishing this by being in lockstep with shared feelings and values, observing customs and norms of the group, and it typically strives to be lenitive and accommodating to others. As Ti is most conscious in IxTPs, and Fe the least, they may not always care or even realize how certain sharp observations may in fact be cutting into other's feelings. Or it may be that since they render everything through these 'sharp' tools, they're a bit like Edward Scissorhands: meek and docile, but prone to the occasional… unfortunate accident when attempting to manipulate their fingers in delicate social situations.
Observing customs is good. Its moral. Why? Because customs are traditional knowledge, knowledge that has evolved. In absense of a better way, following tradition should be the fall back. So, for example, the etiquette of this forum is a set of traditions, ones that I follow. Now, if in the course of my interactions on this forum, I'm presented with a problem that isn't solved by these traditions, then I'll create a solution to that problem and that solution will be separate from the traditions. Actually my solution could possibly become tradition if my solution was good -- by that I mean that other people use my solution and my idea gets replicated from person to person to person.

None of this means that I have a goal of social acceptance.

This is just me living morally.

Dreamspace wrote:
My ilk are well known for railing against society for having certain expectations of them which they are ill-equipped to deal with, and rather than recognizing this as their own shortcoming, they instead deflect and say that it's a problem with culture. They often form their own cliques of like-minded individuals who will pharisaically ostracize any who fail to adhere to the beliefs of the group, and will be ousted for voicing their seditious views. Often times these groups absolutely loath culture, brand others who admit to valuing social acceptance as 'desperate', 'pathetic' or lacking 'resolve' or 'integrity', weeding out any who don't enable the asocial lifestyle.
I think what you've just described is a cult. But my views are not compatible with that. Criticism is good! External criticism is good! Anyone of my ideas could be wrong! If I shield my ideas from criticism then that means I irrationally believe that I have the true.

Dreamspace wrote:
This sort of hypocrisy is, unfortunately, extremely prevalent among the type. Ti value systems are the most rigid of all, and by this same token, IxTPs can at times be extremely judgmental.
Being judgemental means not hiding from the truth. Its a good thing!

Dreamspace wrote:
They're considered Perceiving types in the MBTI system because their lead Extraverted function is undifferentiating, but their dominant function makes judgments about principles — any abstract, rational principle, moral or otherwise. (It may be of interest to note that deontology is the product of an INTP, Immanuel Kant.)

I may have jumped the gun, but you just so happen to fit the INTP profile… and have shown signs of declaring certain collective values as immoral. At a cursory glance, it would seem to fit the bill.

No. I define the value of my options by morality, not social acceptance. So my options are the moral and the immoral. If my peers agree with my choice, then there is a side effect of conformity (like when a person stops his car at a red light). If my peers disagree, then there is a side effect of dissenting (like when a person stops going to church). In the later case, my peers can either accept my dissent or shun me. That is their choice.

So long as you don't ever wind up in a position where you are certain your decisions are always right, or that the other choice is even immoral. If your friends turned their backs on you because you stopped going to church, that would be unfortunate. But how about your friends? If they still go to church or adhere to other mores, are they less ethical?
I don't know what that means. Could you rephrase? What problem are you trying to solve by asking whether or not someone is more or less ethical?

Dreamspace wrote:
Are you an arbiter of morality or simple making decisions for yourself? Are you passively deciding some people are less righteous than others because their beliefs and choices are incongruous with your subjective belief system?
Subjective? Do you think that morality is subjective? That truth is subjective?

Dreamspace wrote:
Have you made the mistake of believing your belief system is actually objective and therefore more valid? Are the only ones who may be doing the rejecting them, and not you?
I don't know what you mean by 'more valid'? Do you mean contains fewer flaws?

Dreamspace wrote:
I'm not saying you are guilty of any of these things, but… these do seem to be common mistakes Ti dominants make.

By influence I'm going to assume that you mean criticism. So lets say I have a choice to make that doesn't involve other people (like whether or not I will continue to go to church). And lets say I want help making my decision, so I seek out a friend asking him for criticism. I'm asking him to look for flaws in my reasoning and to point them out and explain why he thinks they are flaws. And of course I'll have the opportunity to criticize his criticism. And we go back and forth until nobody has any new criticisms. There's more to it than that but this is just a quick description. At the end of this discussion, I maybe persuaded to stop going to church, or to continue going, (or some other variation). Now why would a person seek out a friend's help on making such a decision? Because seeking external criticism is good -- its better than relying on one's own criticism.

This is sort of how a Ti deliberation process works. You have a logical continuity which you wish you iron out any logical errors, but if you actually manage to break out of the circular reasoning and examine the substrate this was built upon, you'll see that all of this logic is operating upon a subjective axiom. In other words, you're sort of dead-set on a certain premise. If you can find someone willing to buy into your premise and then go through the illative process of ensuring there are no logical missteps, that's fine… but you are essentially just doing the equivalent of having a fellow programmer manually double-check your code to see if it properly compiles.

In other words, it is abundantly clear that, in your case, everything must be congruous with this Ti value system. Of course, I still do this myself to some extent, and while there may be differences in the belief systems we've built up, I'm sure the way I've presented my line of reasoning is cognate.

But what about values which don't mesh well with this style of thought? Sometimes (but not always) it is difficult for people who use such a logical schema as their compass to understand political correctness, and this may be seen as something that does nothing more than squelch freedom of speech and deride those who are offended by such things as 'stupid'. If we can't make logical sense of it, we may not respect it, and therefore may not see the value of 'censoring' ourselves. Is political correctness simply a force of oppression? You may say you're simply just calling a spade a spade… but it may be hurtful and depreciative, and not observing social etiquette will make it difficult for you to coexist.
Political correctness is a tradition. In the absense of a reason to deviate from tradition, I will not deviate (as best as I can, which is difficult because the rules of political correctness are arbitrary).

For example, if someone makes a mistake, I'll call it a mistake and I'll explain my reasoning, instead of calling that person stupid. This is compatible with political correctness, and its a good solution to a real problem -- namely that clarity in communication is important for understanding.

Dreamspace wrote:
What do you mean by "preemptively reject"?

By rationalizing that, because you cannot adapt your values and behaviors to match social expectations, it is simply undesirable to do so. And to say it is outright immoral and to justify it as conscientious objection is sort of rejecting the collective, or any of the collective mindset.
I don't reject the collective. I reject the attempts of the collective to enforce its will against my will.

Dreamspace wrote:
What do you mean by "easily adapt"? For example, if some friends ask me to go to a bar, I don't care which bar they choose. In this sense, I'm easy to adapt to their preference. But, I do have a preference that is important to me, which is that the bar is not too loud to be able to hear someone speak -- so loud night clubs is not enjoyable for me. So, if my friends want me to join them at a loud night club, they would need to provide me with a criticism of my reasoning for preferring a bar that allows for talking.

Yes, and needing to be convinced is a laborious process. This is a preference for following your own reasoning over accommodating the needs of others. It is all right to do as trying to suit the needs of others can be overly stressful; however, it becomes problematic if you don't ever see the need to compromise and simply put these considerations aside for the sake of others from time to time. It is all right to do something 'alogical' or even 'illogical' from time to time.
No, why are you assuming its laborious? Sometimes it only takes a few seconds involving only a few sentences back and forth between a few people.

Why do you say "over the needs of others"? Why are you assuming that not rejecting my own preferences implies forcing others to reject theirs?

That implies that common preferences are sometimes impossible to find. I disagree. Every human interaction can involve a common preference such that everybody gets what they want -- meaning that no one gets hurt. Do you agree?

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Dreamspace on Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:43 pm

rombomb wrote:
I don't know how you got that idea from me. I've said that for every human interaction, a common preference should be found. That is one that everybody involved prefers -- which means no one gets hurt because everybody got what they want. How is this not accomodating?

I think you're thinking that not having a goal of social acceptance is incompatible with not wanting anyone to get hurt, but thats wrong. I don't want anyone to get hurt AND this is not a goal of social acceptance -- this is morality.

[…]

Thats why its important to focus on explicitly stating one's preferences rather than hinting at them via social cues. Do you agree?

If you wish to accommodate people through direct communication, asking what it is they want or what may offend them, that's fine. It's just that you should view fitting in with social norms as incompatible with morality, either. People don't expect you to read their emotions to force you to conform, but because them getting hurt or offended is a natural consequence of failing to do so. The problem is it's not possible to have these prolonged dialogues to establish what may or may not offend other people; we've evolved to read others' emotional states, and to make facial expressions to display these to others, to make for more harmonious living. It sort of just became a natural social expectation when biological programming and life-long everyday interactions have this sort of dynamic. It has nothing to do with oppression.

Autistic people are not well-equipped to register these social cues, but for others it comes naturally. Who is the 'immoral' one here? Nobody.

It may be difficult for you to follow social etiquette, but if anything that makes attempting to more virtuous; it would be done for the sake of getting along with others, not to be complicit with 'tyranny'.

Observing customs is good. Its moral. Why? Because customs are traditional knowledge, knowledge that has evolved. In absense of a better way, following tradition should be the fall back. So, for example, the etiquette of this forum is a set of traditions, ones that I follow. Now, if in the course of my interactions on this forum, I'm presented with a problem that isn't solved by these traditions, then I'll create a solution to that problem and that solution will be separate from the traditions. Actually my solution could possibly become tradition if my solution was good -- by that I mean that other people use my solution and my idea gets replicated from person to person to person.

None of this means that I have a goal of social acceptance.

This is just me living morally.

[…]

Political correctness is a tradition. In the absense of a reason to deviate from tradition, I will not deviate (as best as I can, which is difficult because the rules of political correctness are arbitrary).

Traditions and social etiquette are not necessarily one in the same. A traditional value system may be seen as stodgy or even conflict with the type of social observances I'm talking about. A conservative traditional may, for example, not be the most sympathetic toward homosexuals, treating them rudely. An Fe-type value system is about harmony and coexistence, so such behavior would seem untoward to this mindset; it would strive for the equality of any beleaguered group. Observance of established precedent is more the domain of Introverted Sensation, as it is seeks to remain within a comfort zone which is often created by tradition, and is wary of deviating from this — which may come at the expense of social progress.

My point is observance of tradition is probably more to do with your own comfort rather than the comfort of others. Learning how to comport yourself based on your immediate social surrounding requires awareness of other people's emotions and making inferences about what would upset or please them. This may entail alterity, or the opposite of your comfort zone, wherein you adopt other people's customs and assimilate, at least for the time being.

I think what you've just described is a cult. But my views are not compatible with that. Criticism is good! External criticism is good! Anyone of my ideas could be wrong! If I shield my ideas from criticism then that means I irrationally believe that I have the true.

The types of people I described will want to have their theories challenged, but their opinions on conformity and social acceptance are probably going to be touchy subjects. Ti types do nothing but generate judgments and wish to have these judgments evaluated by others nonstop; it's sort of an addiction, and virtually all of them adopt this same attitude: "I want you to check my logic." They basically want to "Ti" together and have others indulge this obsession, which is invigorating for them; they tend to love debates, they love to see their own posts dissected and addressed point by point, they love to do this to others, they love anything which may be arranged into a syllogism, identifying logical fallacies, and so forth.

They don't like conforming to others so much. They don't like changing unless they do it through this very specific logical process. They obey either heuristics derived from subjective logic-based systems, and every choices must be consistent. And compromising this rigid system is often in direct conflict with assimilating to the collective, or having 'social acceptance'. If something does not fist this system, it is 'illogical'; they will not understand why they should do anything to begin with until you can make a logical argument; but not any logical argument — it must be compatible with their own subjective logical continuity.

They probably don't have all your axioms and subjective premises to consider to construct an argument you will find cogent according to your specific belief system, and unless they're a fellow INTP… they probably won't care to. Even if they are, they're probably more interested in their own little worldview, which is seen as precious, and most often they have deluded themselves into believing it is objective because, if you follow all of the premises through, it's usually pretty consistent.

There are some extreme limitations to this, and all the information you process is going to be skewed by this lens. Logical consistency which is pleasing to a Ti dominant has been achieved, certainly; however, genuine objectivity as been severely compromised, as well as impartiality, to some extent.

Being judgemental means not hiding from the truth. Its a good thing!

Do you not see how this will make people uncomfortable and may hurt their feelings or self-esteem at times?

I don't know what that means. Could you rephrase? What problem are you trying to solve by asking whether or not someone is more or less ethical?

Figuring out what may or may not be ethical is pretty difficult, is all. You may make choices which agree with your conception of morality, but others may have a different conception of morality. Others will not act in accordance to your moral system.

You've said you don't have all the answers, but I hope you always keep this in mind when you're making judgments about morality. You may always act in a way you believe to be ethical… but that doesn't mean it is. You may have some very specific ideas about morality which may be incompatible with normative behaviors or ethics. Being 'ethical' may lead you to being cut off and isolated from society.

Conforming and compromising integrity are often times intertwined in the INTP mind. In these cases, it has become backwards rationalization to explain for a failure to assimilate.

You mean like having some shared values? Sure. We should be selective. We shouldn't befriend anyone just like we shouldn't marry anyone.

[…]

Why do you say "over the needs of others"? Why are you assuming that not rejecting my own preferences implies forcing others to reject theirs?

That implies that common preferences are sometimes impossible to find. I disagree. Every human interaction can involve a common preference such that everybody gets what they want -- meaning that no one gets hurt. Do you agree?

To some extent, yes, you should find people who suit you and are willing to partake in activities you enjoy. But if you find you can only get along with a very select few… then you need to become a little more malleable so you can 'fit' with others, rather than looking for others which suit your peculiarities.

To some extent, you should be trying to get into things are and attempt to share interests. I doubt you could have society or friends be the primary factor which defines your interests and preferences, so I wouldn't worry about 'losing yourself' in such a way. But you should at least try to expand your horizons, so to speak. A partial assimilation to others is desirable.

You say people could coax you into doing something with a few short sentences… but when you examine your life, how difficult is it to find others with shared interests you could get along with? How many people are you 'compatible' with? If it's extremely narrow, there's a bit of a problem.

Subjective? Do you think that morality is subjective? That truth is subjective?

Morality is inherently subjective. The closest you can get objectivity with morality is normative ethics, which are values shared by the masses. When it comes to moral truth, you must always start with subjective goals. Almost everybody agrees that suffering is undesirable, so that's usually a pretty easy starting point. Once you decided upon goals, only then may you use objective metrics to determine what is creating the greatest amount of good. You may objectively prove you have acting in a manner logically consistent with a specific set of subjective axioms arranged in a moral system — but you have made a massive, fundamental conceptual error if you believe this means your morality is itself objectively true.

Introverted Thinking is also known as Subjective Logic. There's probably a pretty good chance that most of the things you believed to be 'objective' or 'truth'… are subjective, but logically symmetrical and consistent, and therefore agreeable. In many ways, INTPs are just as much arbitrary aesthetes as Fi dominants. Our aesthetic may be less capricious because it follows logical rules, and this gives it a certain predictability because it's not decided with Feeling. But what we value is typically whatever can be processed and easily arranged in such a way. It is not because it is 'objective' or 'true'; it is only desirable to think in such a way because invoking objectivity rewards us with feelings of validation. But this is a serious mistake.

INTPs are more philosophers than scientists; we've a natural affinity toward rationalism, not empiricism. We like theories, not objective, quantitative facts: we typically find these to be banal. But, most of all, when it comes to the dichotomy of the subjective versus objective, we like to delude ourselves into believing we're more on the objective side of the line. In actuality, we should probably put aside our quixotic beliefs and stop tilting at windmills: Our beliefs which we cherish so much are nothing but walls, comprised of bricks which are nothing more than false dilemmas, used to shield ourselves from the collective which we often times have such difficulty fitting in with.

Morality and social acceptance probably have as much overlap as morality and your personal ethos. Morality is not a justification for keeping yourself cloistered in an imaginary world of principles.

I don't reject the collective. I reject the attempts of the collective to enforce its will against my will.

Introversion is the tendency towards subjectivity, and the preservation of subjective beliefs via repudiation of world. You see it as preserving your integrity or self-concept, as the Ego has decided the world is a threat to ensure subjective hegemony within the psyche. Seeing things in such a way is typically indicative of an unhealthy Introvert, namely one whose inferior Extraverted function comes in the flavor of Feeling, meaning normative values are seen as the enemy to 'reason'.

It's a very bad way to be, and ironically you are being subconsciously blinded by an emotional investment in maintaining this self-image, or Ego, which has been defined by Ti. Fe has become egodystonic.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by rombomb on Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:47 am

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
I don't know how you got that idea from me. I've said that for every human interaction, a
common preference should be found. That is one that everybody involved prefers -- which
means no one gets hurt because everybody got what they want. How is this not accomodating?
I think you're thinking that not having a goal of social acceptance is incompatible with not
wanting anyone to get hurt, but thats wrong. I don't want anyone to get hurt AND this is not
a goal of social acceptance -- this is morality.

[…]

Thats why its important to focus on explicitly stating one's preferences rather than hinting
at them via social cues. Do you agree?
If you wish to accommodate people through direct communication, asking what it is they want
or what may offend them, that's fine. It's just that you should view fitting in with social
norms as incompatible with morality, either.
You've misunderstood me. I respect traditional knowledge -- that includes social norms.
Unless I have good reason to deviate, I'll follow traditional knowledge (aka social norms).

Dreamspace wrote:
People don't expect you to read their emotions to force you to conform, but because them
getting hurt or offended is a natural consequence of failing to do so.
I did not say that people "expect me to read their emotions to force me to conform". You've conflated the issue.

What hurts people is people doing things to them that they don't want done to them. Thats exactly what I avoid by the process of finding common preferences.

A person's social cues cannot communicate one's preference effectively. Since he knows the English language, he should use it, rather than relying on sending signals hinting at his preferences. Why? Because no one can know all the preferences of another individual. And social cues do not communicate preferences.

Dreamspace wrote:
The problem is it's not possible to have these prolonged dialogues to establish what may or
may not offend other people; we've evolved to read others' emotional states, and to make
facial expressions to display these to others, to make for more harmonious living.
Those things are traditional knowledge, and they are often wrong.

For example, a kid has some sun shinning in his face. He squints. His parent sees the squint and reads it as anger. The parent realizes that its possible he misinterpreted, so he asks his kid if he's angry. Kid says 'no, its the sun'.

Do you agree that reading facial expressions is not sufficient?

Dreamspace wrote:
It sort of just became a natural social expectation when biological programming and life-
long everyday interactions have this sort of dynamic. It has nothing to do with oppression.

I don't know why you're saying this. I think you've conflated things. When I talked about force (aka oppression) I was referring to the idea that adults label children with fake diseases **because** the children deviate from social norms.

Dreamspace wrote:
Autistic people are not well-equipped to register these social cues, but for others it comes
naturally. Who is the 'immoral' one here? Nobody.
If their actions are causing hurt, and they know it, and they aren't working to change it, then that is immoral. Do you agree?

Dreamspace wrote:
It may be difficult for you to follow social etiquette, but if anything that makes
attempting to more virtuous; it would be done for the sake of getting along with others, not
to be complicit with 'tyranny'.
Its not difficult. I follow some parts and not others.

Social etiquette is traditional knowledge. In the absense of good reasoning to deviate from traditional knowledge, I will not deviate (as well as I know how to, meaning as well as I understand that traditional knowledge). When do I deviate? When a specific social etiquette rule does not solve the problem it was intended to solve, or that it causes another problem. Thats when I create my own solution. For example, one social etiquette rule is that a person should say 'sorry' instead of 'no'. And I've replaced that with something else. (See the thread titled "I am NOT sorry!")

Dreamspace wrote:
Observing customs is good. Its moral. Why? Because customs are traditional knowledge,
knowledge that has evolved. In absense of a better way, following tradition should be the
fall back. So, for example, the etiquette of this forum is a set of traditions, ones that I
follow. Now, if in the course of my interactions on this forum, I'm presented with a problem
that isn't solved by these traditions, then I'll create a solution to that problem and that
solution will be separate from the traditions. Actually my solution could possibly become
tradition if my solution was good -- by that I mean that other people use my solution and my
idea gets replicated from person to person to person.
None of this means that I have a goal of social acceptance.
This is just me living morally.

[…]

Political correctness is a tradition. In the absense of a reason to deviate from tradition,
I will not deviate (as best as I can, which is difficult because the rules of political
correctness are arbitrary).

Traditions and social etiquette are not necessarily one in the same. A traditional value
system may be seen as stodgy or even conflict with the type of social observances I'm
talking about. A conservative traditional may, for example, not be the most sympathetic
toward homosexuals, treating them rudely.
Good point. Most people's understanding of social etiquette includes rules about how people should dress in public. And some gay people dress up in ways that deviates from these rules. They are deviating from social etiquette.

Dreamspace wrote:
An Fe-type value system is about harmony and
coexistence, so such behavior would seem untoward to this mindset; it would strive for the
equality of any beleaguered group. Observance of established precedent is more the domain of
Introverted Sensation, as it is seeks to remain within a comfort zone which is often created
by tradition, and is wary of deviating from this — which may come at the expense of social
progress.
By "harmony and coexistence", do you mean *peace and mutually benefitial human interaction*? If so, that is the core of my value system -- so I don't know why you're saying that Fe-types have these values implying that other types don't.

Dreamspace wrote:
My point is observance of tradition is probably more to do with your own comfort rather than
the comfort of others. Learning how to comport yourself based on your immediate social
surrounding requires awareness of other people's emotions and making inferences about what
would upset or please them. This may entail alterity, or the opposite of your comfort zone,
wherein you adopt other people's customs and assimilate, at least for the time being.
That sounds vague. Consider this hypothetical:

A boyfriend and girlfriend are at his friend's cookout. He and his friends are making jokes about each other. At one point the girlfriend makes a facial expression indicating that she didn't like something that just happened, but the boyfriend didn't know what. So later he asks her what was wrong. She explained that one of the jokes that the boyfriend said was at the expense of her ethnicity, and so she was offended. This didn't make sense to the boyfriend since he of the same ethnicity. But regardless the boyfriend decides to not make jokes at the expense of their ethnicity in her presense anymore, so that she doesn't get offended. She agreed that that is a good plan. So they found a common preference.

Dreamspace wrote:
I think what you've just described is a cult. But my views are not compatible with
that. Criticism is good! External criticism is good! Anyone of my ideas could be wrong! If I
shield my ideas from criticism then that means I irrationally believe that I have the true.

The types of people I described will want to have their theories challenged, but their
opinions on conformity and social acceptance are probably going to be touchy subjects.
What do you mean by "touchy"? Do you mean that he will get offended? I don't see why you think that. I don't get offended by that.

Dreamspace wrote:
Ti
types do nothing but generate judgments and wish to have these judgments evaluated by others
nonstop; it's sort of an addiction, and virtually all of them adopt this same attitude: "I
want you to check my logic." They basically want to "Ti" together and have others indulge
this obsession, which is invigorating for them; they tend to love debates, they love to see
their own posts dissected and addressed point by point, they love to do this to others, they
love anything which may be arranged into a syllogism, identifying logical fallacies, and so
forth.
You mean they love learning? Yes. Thats a good thing. Everybody should love learning, since learning is valueable.

Dreamspace wrote:
They don't like conforming to others so much. They don't like changing unless they do it
through this very specific logical process. They obey either heuristics derived from
subjective logic-based systems, and every choices must be consistent. And compromising this
rigid system is often in direct conflict with assimilating to the collective, or having
'social acceptance'. If something does not fist this system, it is 'illogical'; they will
not understand why they should do anything to begin with until you can make a logical
argument; but not any logical argument — it must be compatible with their own
subjective logical continuity.
In other words, these people don't do anything unless they agree to do it. And they don't agree unless their own reasoning indicates that its good.

And you see a flaw with that?

How do you think people should act instead? Should people do things that they don't agree with? Should people agree to things without understanding the reasoning explaining why they are good?

Dreamspace wrote:
They probably don't have all your axioms and subjective premises to consider to construct an
argument you will find cogent according to your specific belief system, and unless they're a
fellow INTP… they probably won't care to. Even if they are, they're probably more interested
in their own little worldview, which is seen as precious, and most often they have
deluded themselves into believing it is objective because, if you follow all of the premises
through, it's usually pretty consistent.

There are some extreme limitations to this, and all the information you process is going to
be skewed by this lens. Logical consistency which is pleasing to a Ti dominant has been
achieved, certainly; however, genuine objectivity as been severely compromised, as
well as impartiality, to some extent.
You are asserting this without explanation. What is your explanation that objectivity is compromised?

Dreamspace wrote:
Being judgemental means not hiding from the truth. Its a good thing!

Do you not see how this will make people uncomfortable and may hurt their feelings or self-
esteem at times?
Only some people have that problem. They (1) have the attitude that mistakes are shameful, and (2) fear that they won't fix their mistakes (aka solve their problems).

If someone doesn't want to know what I think, I won't tell them. Why? Because that is their preference, and going against their preference means hurting them, and I intend to avoid hurting them.

Dreamspace wrote:
I don't know what that means. Could you rephrase? What problem are you trying to
solve by asking whether or not someone is more or less ethical?
Figuring out what may or may not be ethical is pretty difficult, is all. You may make
choices which agree with your conception of morality, but others may have a different
conception of morality. Others will not act in accordance to your moral system.
You've said you don't have all the answers, but I hope you always keep this in mind when
you're making judgments about morality. You may always act in a way you believe to be
ethical… but that doesn't mean it is. You may have some very specific ideas about morality
which may be incompatible with normative behaviors or ethics. Being 'ethical' may lead you
to being cut off and isolated from society.
And what is your explanation for that? Why do you think that would happen?

I'm not isolated from society. I interact with people a lot. Some in person. Some in cyberspace. The last 5 people I've met over the past few months have liked me and friended me. They liked the way I think. They liked what I think. They enjoyed our discussions.

I don't know why you think that my actions would cause isolation. What is your reasoning for that?

Dreamspace wrote:
Conforming and compromising integrity are often times intertwined in the INTP mind. In these
cases, it has become backwards rationalization to explain for a failure to assimilate.
You mean like having some shared values? Sure. We should be selective. We shouldn't
befriend anyone just like we shouldn't marry anyone.

[…]

Why do you say "over the needs of others"? Why are you assuming that not rejecting my own
preferences implies forcing others to reject theirs?

That implies that common preferences are sometimes impossible to find. I disagree. Every
human interaction can involve a common preference such that everybody gets what they want --
meaning that no one gets hurt. Do you agree?

To some extent, yes, you should find people who suit you and are willing to partake in
activities you enjoy. But if you find you can only get along with a very select few… then
you need to become a little more malleable so you can 'fit' with others, rather than looking
for others which suit your peculiarities.
I disagree. A few friends that fit you is better than a bunch of friends that don't fit you.

Why do you think quantity should be sought after instead of quality?

Dreamspace wrote:
To some extent, you should be trying to get into things are and attempt to share interests.
I doubt you could have society or friends be the primary factor which defines your interests
and preferences, so I wouldn't worry about 'losing yourself' in such a way. But you should
at least try to expand your horizons, so to speak. A partial assimilation to others is
desirable.
By "assimiliation" do you mean *sacrifice some of my values*? I disagree.

Expand my horizons? How? To what? And for what purpose?

Dreamspace wrote:
You say people could coax you into doing something with a few short sentences… but when you
examine your life, how difficult is it to find others with shared interests you could get
along with? How many people are you 'compatible' with? If it's extremely narrow, there's a
bit of a problem.
Why is that a problem? You're asserting this without explanation. What is your explanation?

Dreamspace wrote:
Subjective? Do you think that morality is subjective? That truth is subjective?

Morality is inherently subjective. The closest you can get objectivity with morality is
normative ethics, which are values shared by the masses.
Here's an objective moral idea: Murder is immoral.

Dreamspace wrote:
When it comes to moral truth, you
must always start with subjective goals. Almost everybody agrees that suffering is
undesirable, so that's usually a pretty easy starting point.
Its not that easy. People do disagree on that. Some people start by talking about physical pain. A counter-example shows that this is mistaken. Some people like physical pain to be inflicted on them while they are having sex. Since they are enjoying themselves, I think it doesn't make sense to say that they are suffering.

I think its best to think of suffering as mental/psychological suffering. So, if someone has a headache, and he doesn't mind the headache right now, lets say because he's writing a long post and he doesn't want to interrupt his train of thought just yet, and he decides that he's going to get a pain pill after he's finished with this post, then that is not mental suffering, even though he has physical pain.

Dreamspace wrote:
Once you decided upon goals,
only then may you use objective metrics to determine what is creating the greatest amount of
good. You may objectively prove you have acting in a manner logically consistent with a
specific set of subjective axioms arranged in a moral system — but you have made a massive,
fundamental conceptual error if you believe this means your morality is itself objectively
true.
Murder is immoral.

Terrorism is immoral.

Punishment is immoral.

Do you agree that these are objective moral truths?

If so, why do you think that I've made a fundamental conceptual error?

Dreamspace wrote:
Introverted Thinking is also known as Subjective Logic. There's probably a pretty good
chance that most of the things you believed to be 'objective' or 'truth'… are subjective,
but logically symmetrical and consistent, and therefore agreeable. In many ways, INTPs are
just as much arbitrary aesthetes as Fi dominants. Our aesthetic may be less capricious
because it follows logical rules, and this gives it a certain predictability because
it's not decided with Feeling. But what we value is typically whatever can be processed and
easily arranged in such a way. It is not because it is 'objective' or 'true'; it is only
desirable to think in such a way because invoking objectivity rewards us with feelings of
validation. But this is a serious mistake.
You're wrong about how I make decisions. I don't disregard them.

Feelings have knowledge in them. If I'm sad, there is a reason that I'm sad. I try to find that reason and I use it in my decision-making process.

Dreamspace wrote:
INTPs are more philosophers than scientists; we've a natural affinity toward rationalism,
not empiricism.
What do you mean by "natural affinity"? Do you mean *genetically programmed*? If so, I disagree with you about that. Our genes do provide the initial programming for our minds, but that programming does not know the difference between rationalism and empiricism.

Dreamspace wrote:
We like theories, not objective, quantitative facts: we typically find these
to be banal.
I don't know what you're talking about. I love science. I got a BS degree in physics.

Dreamspace wrote:
But, most of all, when it comes to the dichotomy of the subjective versus
objective, we like to delude ourselves into believing we're more on the objective side of
the line. In actuality, we should probably put aside our quixotic beliefs and stop tilting
at windmills: Our beliefs which we cherish so much are nothing but walls, comprised of
bricks which are nothing more than false dilemmas, used to shield ourselves from the
collective which we often times have such difficulty fitting in with.
You are asserting that without explanation. I don't set my values *because* I don't fit in.

For one thing, I have friends, which I think you'll agree that that means that I do fit in. So why do you think that I set my values because I don't fit in, when I do fit in?

Dreamspace wrote:
Morality and social acceptance probably have as much overlap as morality and your personal
ethos. Morality is not a justification for keeping yourself cloistered in an imaginary world
of principles.
Thats vague. I don't know what you mean. I don't know what 'probably' means in that sentence. Nor 'overlap'.

Dreamspace wrote:
I don't reject the collective. I reject the attempts of the collective to enforce its
will against my will.
Introversion is the tendency towards subjectivity, and the preservation of subjective
beliefs via repudiation of world. You see it as preserving your integrity or self-concept,
as the Ego has decided the world is a threat to ensure subjective hegemony within the
psyche. Seeing things in such a way is typically indicative of an unhealthy Introvert,
namely one whose inferior Extraverted function comes in the flavor of Feeling, meaning
normative values are seen as the enemy to 'reason'.

It's a very bad way to be,
So now you're asserting that I'm bad, but without explanation. What is bad about it?

Dreamspace wrote:
and ironically you are being subconsciously blinded by an
emotional investment in maintaining this self-image, or Ego,
Here you're asserting that I have certain emotions, but without saying any details. And you're asserting that I'm subconsciously blinded by those emotions, but again without details.

Dreamspace wrote:
which has been defined by Ti.
Fe has become egodystonic.
Asserting that I'm being controlled by Ti/Fe stuff is dehumanizing.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Zen on Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:50 pm

So I'ma just tell a story.

My brother is an Aspie, was diagnosed young as a kid.
When he got mad he would hit me, ALOT.
He would throw things, yank my hair, kick me, punch me... ect.

My mother would say "it's just how he is don't let it bother you!" and pretty much let him beat me up.
My father would stop him and then yell a whole lot.

So after years of this, eventually he got me so mad I hit him back, harder than he hit me. I got in major trouble for this, I think I was like an early teenager. BUT after I did hit him back he finally got "hey you know being violent hurts people and this is what it feels like to get hit."
And he stopped it.

So the point is, I don't think it's unacceptable or immoral to try to teach Aspie kids the behavioral standards used for most kids and just one example is:"it's wrong to beat up people when you're mad that you're not getting the candy you want."
It's something they have to learn to function in their lives later, and it's a basic thing for most people. It's not doing them a favor by accepting and enabling something like that.
However, it is unreasonable to expect Aspies to do everything the same way as other kids. The same with any condition, they just need to be taught the things they need to learn in a different manner.
Just like it's unreasonable to expect deaf people to hear it's unreasonable to expect them to do certain things the way everyone else does but that doesn't mean they should be exempt from being a member of society and having consequences for their actions like everyone else.

My friend has an autistic son and she gets ticked off when he hits someone, or does some kind of majorly disruptive act in school. She still expects him to behave himself like any other kid.
avatar
Zen

Posts : 1011
Join date : 2012-06-17
Age : 28
Location : United States West Coast

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by rombomb on Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:55 pm

Zen wrote:So I'ma just tell a story.

My brother is an Aspie, was diagnosed young as a kid.
When he got mad he would hit me, ALOT.
He would throw things, yank my hair, kick me, punch me... ect.
And your parents didn't stop it, maybe because they didn't know how. Better knowledge would have fixed this problem. See below.

Zen wrote:
My mother would say "it's just how he is don't let it bother you!" and pretty much let him beat me up.
This is evil. Pacifism is immoral. Forced pacifism is worse.

Zen wrote:
My father would stop him
Good!

Zen wrote:
and then yell a whole lot.
Bad. Better knowledge would have fixed this problem. See below.

Zen wrote:
So after years of this, eventually he got me so mad I hit him back, harder than he hit me.
I think its not immoral to use more force against a victim's abuser in situations of self-defense.

Zen wrote:
I got in major trouble for this,
Ridiculous! They are responsible for your protection. If they act irresponsibly, at the expense of your safety, then you have the right, and responsibility to act on your own behalf.

Zen wrote:
I think I was like an early teenager. BUT after I did hit him back he finally got "hey you know being violent hurts people and this is what it feels like to get hit."
And he stopped it.
You've just illustrated that tradition (corporal punishment) is better than arbitrary new ideas (the "progressive" stuff your parents did).

Traditional knowledge should be replaced with better knowledge, and that is not easy to come by. If you don't think much, you'll fuck it up worse than if you had just stuck to traditional knowledge.

Don't get me wrong. I do not advocate corporate punishment. I don't even advocate punishment. Its evil. Its not conducive to learning. The punishment tradition evolved to solve a problem. The problem is that people deviate from social rules, and parents don't like that. But this solution is riddled with flaws. Actually even the problem is riddled with flaws. We already have better knowledge that doesn't have these flaws. All it takes is to learn it.

Zen wrote:
So the point is, I don't think it's unacceptable or immoral to try to teach Aspie kids the behavioral standards used for most kids and just one example is:"it's wrong to beat up people when you're mad that you're not getting the candy you want." It's something they have to learn to function in their lives later, and it's a basic thing for most people. It's not doing them a favor by accepting and enabling something like that.

However, it is unreasonable to expect Aspies to do everything the same way as other kids. The same with any condition, they just need to be taught the things they need to learn in a different manner.
Replace "Aspies" with *people who don't like physics* and you get:

However, it is unreasonable to expect *people who don't like physics* to do everything the same way as other kids *who like physics*.
The same with any "condition", they just need to be taught physics in a different manner.

Zen wrote:
Just like it's unreasonable to expect deaf people to hear it's unreasonable to expect them to do certain things the way everyone else does but that doesn't mean they should be exempt from being a member of society and having consequences for their actions like everyone else.
That analogy is flawed.

Not everybody can hear, but everybody can learn social cues and rules.

Deaf people can't hear, but "Aspies" can learn social cues and rules.

Zen wrote:
My friend has an autistic son and she gets ticked off when he hits someone, or does some kind of majorly disruptive act in school. She still expects him to behave himself like any other kid.
Getting angry (aka "ticked off") is unwise. It is counter-productive.

This is what I did with my children. I'll hypotheticalize some of it.

Boy hits girl. Girl calls out in pain or warning or whatever (to get parent's attention that there is danger).

Parent arrives and says to girl: I'm here to help.

Girl: He hit me.

Parent asks boy: What problem were you trying to solve?"

Boy: What?

Parent: When you hit her, you were trying to solve a problem. You were trying to get something you wanted. What were you trying to get?

Boy: She has my toy. (and points at something in her pocket.)

Parent ask girl: Is that his?

Girl: Yes, but he doesn't want to share.

Parent: Ok but thats his decision to share. Did you ask him for it?

Girl: No, because he never says yes.

Parent: So you took his toy against what he wants. That means you're hurting him. Please give it back to him. (the exchange happens.)

Parent asks boy: She wants to play with it, so could she use it for now while you're not using it?

Boy: Ok.

Parent: Now about what you did, you hit her. Did hitting her solve your problem? ... No, it created a new problem and it didn't even solve your original problem, which is that you wanted your toy back. So what should you have done instead? ... You should have asked her for your toy back. ... And if she said no, you should remind her that 'doing something to you against what you want means hurting you'. ... And if that doesn't work then ask me for help, thats what I'm here for. I'm here to help you be happy.

No where in any of this should the parent make a frown or use a disapproving tone or otherwise use social cues to convey that the boy (or girl) should be ashamed. There is nothing shameful here, especially not on the children's part.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Reamsie on Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:46 pm

I probably have a little different view of this issue due to the fact that I was raised to "expect" that people would not accept me but that it was ok because the beliefs that I was being raised with were more important than acceptance by, I guess for lack of a better word, the "mainstream" and that I had to be willing to endure hardship and possibly even death, if necessary, rather than compromise those beliefs, morals, ethics.

My childhood was super fun! (insert sarcasm)

So I don't let what other people think of me bother me a whole lot. That not everyone is going to like you and that sometimes you have to even endure hardship because of it.

Side note: It also instilled in me an overly developed sense of right and wrong and is probably where that J came from in my INTJ Very Happy





_________________
What fun is being cool if you can't wear a sombrero!--Calvin, Calvin & Hobbes

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey... stuff.--The Tenth Doctor, Blink
avatar
Reamsie
moderator

Posts : 1481
Join date : 2008-05-02
Age : 46
Location : In the TARDIS

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by melodiccolor on Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:51 pm

Reamsie wrote:
Side note: It also instilled in me an overly developed sense of right and wrong and is probably where that J came from in my INTJ Very Happy




Ah so that's how INTJs are made? LOL From one J to another....interesting..... Suspect What a Face

_________________
Life is complex.  Parts of it are real and parts of it are imaginary.  (read in a novel by Gregory Benford.)

Absurdity is one of the great joys of life.

All you need for a rich life is to see more.
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11759
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Alethia on Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:47 pm

rombomb wrote:
Zen wrote:So I'ma just tell a story.

My brother is an Aspie, was diagnosed young as a kid.
When he got mad he would hit me, ALOT.
He would throw things, yank my hair, kick me, punch me... ect.
And your parents didn't stop it, maybe because they didn't know how. Better knowledge would have fixed this problem. See below.

Zen wrote:
My mother would say "it's just how he is don't let it bother you!" and pretty much let him beat me up.
This is evil. Pacifism is immoral. Forced pacifism is worse.

Zen wrote:
My father would stop him
Good!

Zen wrote:
and then yell a whole lot.
Bad. Better knowledge would have fixed this problem. See below.

Zen wrote:
So after years of this, eventually he got me so mad I hit him back, harder than he hit me.
I think its not immoral to use more force against a victim's abuser in situations of self-defense.

Zen wrote:
I got in major trouble for this,
Ridiculous! They are responsible for your protection. If they act irresponsibly, at the expense of your safety, then you have the right, and responsibility to act on your own behalf.

Zen wrote:
I think I was like an early teenager. BUT after I did hit him back he finally got "hey you know being violent hurts people and this is what it feels like to get hit."
And he stopped it.
You've just illustrated that tradition (corporal punishment) is better than arbitrary new ideas (the "progressive" stuff your parents did).

Traditional knowledge should be replaced with better knowledge, and that is not easy to come by. If you don't think much, you'll fuck it up worse than if you had just stuck to traditional knowledge.

Don't get me wrong. I do not advocate corporate punishment. I don't even advocate punishment. Its evil. Its not conducive to learning. The punishment tradition evolved to solve a problem. The problem is that people deviate from social rules, and parents don't like that. But this solution is riddled with flaws. Actually even the problem is riddled with flaws. We already have better knowledge that doesn't have these flaws. All it takes is to learn it.

Zen wrote:
So the point is, I don't think it's unacceptable or immoral to try to teach Aspie kids the behavioral standards used for most kids and just one example is:"it's wrong to beat up people when you're mad that you're not getting the candy you want." It's something they have to learn to function in their lives later, and it's a basic thing for most people. It's not doing them a favor by accepting and enabling something like that.

However, it is unreasonable to expect Aspies to do everything the same way as other kids. The same with any condition, they just need to be taught the things they need to learn in a different manner.
Replace "Aspies" with *people who don't like physics* and you get:

However, it is unreasonable to expect *people who don't like physics* to do everything the same way as other kids *who like physics*.
The same with any "condition", they just need to be taught physics in a different manner.

Zen wrote:
Just like it's unreasonable to expect deaf people to hear it's unreasonable to expect them to do certain things the way everyone else does but that doesn't mean they should be exempt from being a member of society and having consequences for their actions like everyone else.
That analogy is flawed.

Not everybody can hear, but everybody can learn social cues and rules.

Deaf people can't hear, but "Aspies" can learn social cues and rules.

Zen wrote:
My friend has an autistic son and she gets ticked off when he hits someone, or does some kind of majorly disruptive act in school. She still expects him to behave himself like any other kid.
Getting angry (aka "ticked off") is unwise. It is counter-productive.

This is what I did with my children. I'll hypotheticalize some of it.

Boy hits girl. Girl calls out in pain or warning or whatever (to get parent's attention that there is danger).

Parent arrives and says to girl: I'm here to help.

Girl: He hit me.

Parent asks boy: What problem were you trying to solve?"

Boy: What?

Parent: When you hit her, you were trying to solve a problem. You were trying to get something you wanted. What were you trying to get?

Boy: She has my toy. (and points at something in her pocket.)

Parent ask girl: Is that his?

Girl: Yes, but he doesn't want to share.

Parent: Ok but thats his decision to share. Did you ask him for it?

Girl: No, because he never says yes.

Parent: So you took his toy against what he wants. That means you're hurting him. Please give it back to him. (the exchange happens.)

Parent asks boy: She wants to play with it, so could she use it for now while you're not using it?

Boy: Ok.

Parent: Now about what you did, you hit her. Did hitting her solve your problem? ... No, it created a new problem and it didn't even solve your original problem, which is that you wanted your toy back. So what should you have done instead? ... You should have asked her for your toy back. ... And if she said no, you should remind her that 'doing something to you against what you want means hurting you'. ... And if that doesn't work then ask me for help, thats what I'm here for. I'm here to help you be happy.

No where in any of this should the parent make a frown or use a disapproving tone or otherwise use social cues to convey that the boy (or girl) should be ashamed. There is nothing shameful here, especially not on the children's part.

Empowering your children to learn empathy and understanding..with acknowlegement tossed in is very wise way to parent..when you ask your children those questions in your final assessment one with them..do you answer for them or allow their answer?
avatar
Alethia

Posts : 5756
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : all around the universe

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by mtngrl123 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:09 pm

rombomb wrote:
Zen wrote:So I'ma just tell a story.

My brother is an Aspie, was diagnosed young as a kid.
When he got mad he would hit me, ALOT.
He would throw things, yank my hair, kick me, punch me... ect.
And your parents didn't stop it, maybe because they didn't know how. Better knowledge would have fixed this problem. See below.

Zen wrote:
My mother would say "it's just how he is don't let it bother you!" and pretty much let him beat me up.
This is evil. Pacifism is immoral. Forced pacifism is worse.

Zen wrote:
My father would stop him
Good!

Zen wrote:
and then yell a whole lot.
Bad. Better knowledge would have fixed this problem. See below.

Zen wrote:
So after years of this, eventually he got me so mad I hit him back, harder than he hit me.
I think its not immoral to use more force against a victim's abuser in situations of self-defense.

Zen wrote:
I got in major trouble for this,
Ridiculous! They are responsible for your protection. If they act irresponsibly, at the expense of your safety, then you have the right, and responsibility to act on your own behalf.

Zen wrote:
I think I was like an early teenager. BUT after I did hit him back he finally got "hey you know being violent hurts people and this is what it feels like to get hit."
And he stopped it.
You've just illustrated that tradition (corporal punishment) is better than arbitrary new ideas (the "progressive" stuff your parents did).

Traditional knowledge should be replaced with better knowledge, and that is not easy to come by. If you don't think much, you'll fuck it up worse than if you had just stuck to traditional knowledge.

Don't get me wrong. I do not advocate corporate punishment. I don't even advocate punishment. Its evil. Its not conducive to learning. The punishment tradition evolved to solve a problem. The problem is that people deviate from social rules, and parents don't like that. But this solution is riddled with flaws. Actually even the problem is riddled with flaws. We already have better knowledge that doesn't have these flaws. All it takes is to learn it.

Zen wrote:
So the point is, I don't think it's unacceptable or immoral to try to teach Aspie kids the behavioral standards used for most kids and just one example is:"it's wrong to beat up people when you're mad that you're not getting the candy you want." It's something they have to learn to function in their lives later, and it's a basic thing for most people. It's not doing them a favor by accepting and enabling something like that.

However, it is unreasonable to expect Aspies to do everything the same way as other kids. The same with any condition, they just need to be taught the things they need to learn in a different manner.
Replace "Aspies" with *people who don't like physics* and you get:

However, it is unreasonable to expect *people who don't like physics* to do everything the same way as other kids *who like physics*.
The same with any "condition", they just need to be taught physics in a different manner.

Zen wrote:
Just like it's unreasonable to expect deaf people to hear it's unreasonable to expect them to do certain things the way everyone else does but that doesn't mean they should be exempt from being a member of society and having consequences for their actions like everyone else.
That analogy is flawed.

Not everybody can hear, but everybody can learn social cues and rules.

Deaf people can't hear, but "Aspies" can learn social cues and rules.

Zen wrote:
My friend has an autistic son and she gets ticked off when he hits someone, or does some kind of majorly disruptive act in school. She still expects him to behave himself like any other kid.
Getting angry (aka "ticked off") is unwise. It is counter-productive.

This is what I did with my children. I'll hypotheticalize some of it.

Boy hits girl. Girl calls out in pain or warning or whatever (to get parent's attention that there is danger).

Parent arrives and says to girl: I'm here to help.

Girl: He hit me.

Parent asks boy: What problem were you trying to solve?"

Boy: What?

Parent: When you hit her, you were trying to solve a problem. You were trying to get something you wanted. What were you trying to get?

Boy: She has my toy. (and points at something in her pocket.)

Parent ask girl: Is that his?

Girl: Yes, but he doesn't want to share.

Parent: Ok but thats his decision to share. Did you ask him for it?

Girl: No, because he never says yes.

Parent: So you took his toy against what he wants. That means you're hurting him. Please give it back to him. (the exchange happens.)

Parent asks boy: She wants to play with it, so could she use it for now while you're not using it?

Boy: Ok.

Parent: Now about what you did, you hit her. Did hitting her solve your problem? ... No, it created a new problem and it didn't even solve your original problem, which is that you wanted your toy back. So what should you have done instead? ... You should have asked her for your toy back. ... And if she said no, you should remind her that 'doing something to you against what you want means hurting you'. ... And if that doesn't work then ask me for help, thats what I'm here for. I'm here to help you be happy.

No where in any of this should the parent make a frown or use a disapproving tone or otherwise use social cues to convey that the boy (or girl) should be ashamed. There is nothing shameful here, especially not on the children's part.


Have you considered sharing your parenting techniques with a child psychologist to see what they think of it? Might be a top seller here.

mtngrl123

Posts : 642
Join date : 2011-06-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by rombomb on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm

Alethia wrote:
Empowering your children to learn empathy and understanding..with acknowlegement tossed in is very wise way to parent..when you ask your children those questions in your final assessment one with them..do you answer for them or allow their answer?
At the end of my hypothetical discussion, I used "..." to mean that there was back and forth discussion.

Do I allow answers? In truth-seeking there is no place for coercion/force/involuntary action. Not allowing answers is coercion, which is immoral. Its immoral because its a barrier to truth-seeking. No one can know for sure who is right (or which are ideas are correct) at the start of a truth-seeking discussion. The purpose of the discussion is to find the truth. So if one assumes the truth at the start, he's setting himself up for disaster.


If they say something I find a flaw in, I explain the flaw, sometimes by asking a leading question whose answer reveals the flaw. And when they see flaws in my ideas, they explain them too.

And we go back and forth until we agree. This is assuming there is enough time -- if there isn't enough time now, then the discussion continues later when there is time. Its also assuming that all parties *want* to discuss at the moment -- if someone doesn't want to discuss, then the discussion is postponed to a later time. But...

Sometimes the situation is tricky and the child doesn't want to discuss ever. Maybe he did something bad, and he knows it, but he doesn't want to discuss it for reasons that the parent doesn't completely understand (or even if he does understand, that doesn't matter). That is the child's right. But this is ok, because there will be plenty of similar situations (with a little bit different context) in the future that the child would be willing to discuss. Or...

Its possible also that the child never makes that specific type of mistake again, so no need to ever discuss it.


Last edited by rombomb on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by rombomb on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:56 pm

mtngrl123 wrote:
Have you considered sharing your parenting techniques with a child psychologist to see what they think of it? Might be a top seller here.
Not sure how to do that really. I don't know how that would play out.

These aren't my ideas btw. I mean they're mine now, but I'm not the originator.

This is a parenting philosophy called Taking Children Seriously (TCS). It was created by David Deutsch.

A core idea in TCS is freedom. And one consequence of this is the idea (or process) of Common Preference Finding (CPF). David Deutsch created CPF by first understanding Popper’s theory of the growth of knowledge in science and in society. Then he realized that there is a deep underlying epistemological theory there (and he wasn’t the only one to realize this). He realized that this has implications for how the mind works, and hence for education. Then he applied the epistemology to a knowledge-creating entity consisting of two or more people, such as a family.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Alethia on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:56 pm

rombomb wrote:
Alethia wrote:
Empowering your children to learn empathy and understanding..with acknowlegement tossed in is very wise way to parent..when you ask your children those questions in your final assessment one with them..do you answer for them or allow their answer?
At the end of my hypothetical discussion, I used "..." to mean that there was back and forth discussion.

Do I allow answers? In truth-seeking there is no place for coercion/force/involuntary action. Not allowing answers is coercion, which is immoral. Its immoral because its a barrier to truth-seeking. No one can know for sure who is right (or which are ideas are correct) at the start of a truth-seeking discussion. The purpose of the discussion is to find the truth. So if one assumes the truth at the start, he's setting himself up for disaster.


If they say something I find a flaw in, I explain the flaw, sometimes by asking a leading question whose answer reveals the flaw. And when they see flaws in my ideas, they explain them too.

And we go back and forth until we agree. This is assuming there is enough time -- if there isn't enough time now, then the discussion continues later when there is time. Its also assuming that all parties *want* to discuss at the moment -- if someone doesn't want to discuss, then the discussion is postponed to a later time. But...

Sometimes the situation is tricky and the child doesn't want to discuss ever. Maybe he did something bad, and he knows it, but he doesn't want to discuss it for reasons that the parent doesn't completely understand (or even if he does understand, that doesn't matter). That is the child's right. But this is ok, because there will be plenty of similar situations (with a little bit different context) in the future that the child would be willing to discuss. Or...

Its possible also that the child never makes that specific type of mistake again.

I see how your working towards building in your children a foundation of truth shared with your own but for them to learn that they do have a say and a voice in the face of your truth regardless.
avatar
Alethia

Posts : 5756
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : all around the universe

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by rombomb on Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:10 pm

Alethia wrote:
I see how your working towards building in your children a foundation of truth shared with your own but for them to learn that they do have a say and a voice in the face of your truth regardless.
If we are discussing a conflict of ideas (my idea conflicts with their idea), and if after multiple backs and forths we still have not agreed, that means I'm wrong. It means I failed to give them a persuasive explanation (persuasive as judged by their standards, not mine). In these situations, its immoral to resort to coercion/force.

Parents who, when they fail to persuade their children, resort to coercion, are harming their children. This is how people get irrationalities and anti-rational memes.

For clarity, by "coercion" I mean acting against the will of another.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by mtngrl123 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:45 am

rombomb wrote:
Alethia wrote:
I see how your working towards building in your children a foundation of truth shared with your own but for them to learn that they do have a say and a voice in the face of your truth regardless.
If we are discussing a conflict of ideas (my idea conflicts with their idea), and if after multiple backs and forths we still have not agreed, that means I'm wrong. It means I failed to give them a persuasive explanation (persuasive as judged by their standards, not mine). In these situations, its immoral to resort to coercion/force.

Parents who, when they fail to persuade their children, resort to coercion, are harming their children. This is how people get irrationalities and anti-rational memes.

For clarity, by "coercion" I mean acting against the will of another.

Are you saying that there are situations where coercion is moral?

mtngrl123

Posts : 642
Join date : 2011-06-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: HSP Issue: Not everyone is supposed to like you

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum