Honesty and why people hate it

Post Reply New Topic

In order to gauge how people are, you have to get around people more. It's not as simple as supposed "logic."

It's simplistic to evaluate a whole group of people in the way that you are doing. Yes, there are some people who are the way you described. However, I've been around many people, and I've found that many, especially when they are adults, are NOT what you described.

It seems like the OP lives in a world of theory, not of experience.

People hate the truth. There are tons of quotes about this, including "truth hurts" or "you can't handle the truth!"
I for one love the truth. It's probably due to my logical and scientic nature. I naturally seek out the truth. There have been some exceptions, certain times where I deluded myself into believing something false.
So why then do the vast majority of people hate honesty? They don't hold truth and logic in high regard like I do. What's most important to them is what feels good. They put emotions and feeling good above all else. Thus everything they say is motivated by what will make them feel good, not by what is accurate.
For the longest time, I did not understand the concept of "that's depressing." I mean what does it matter if it's depressing if it's true? You must remember people do not like to think about bad things (or at all really). For example, on The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon points out that suicide rates are high around Christmastime. This is of course a fact. But the "audience" is cracking up. Sheldon had said something "depressing" during a time of cheer. And I guess that is a humorous faux pas.
Or take modern day racism for example. Many Americans refuse to believe that racism ruins many lives to this day. Believing such a thing would be "a tough pill to swallow," as the idiom goes. It's easier, and nicer, to believe that racism was magically and abruptly extinguished. Otherwise, thinking such a thought would get them down.
Here's another example. A friend asks if they look fat. They most certainly do. But only the most socially clueless person would actually say they are fat. First of all, saying the truth would be an "a**hole move." And no one wants to be thought of as an asshole--gotta be liked by everyone. Additionally, the friend's feelings would be hurt. And feelings are more important than the truth. Logically, it would be better if the friend accepted they were fat and either embraced their figure or changed their eating habits. But that's not how people work.
I think this boils down to how much one values the truth/reality. So in addition to the neurotypical population, I'd say that some of the autistic population is the same. There are some users I've come across on here who didn't care for honesty.

So someone is fat, big deal. They want to be accepted, we want to be accepted. How can we berate someone for being fat if we don't like it how NTs point out to us how weird we are and how we are an embarrassment to them with our stims or meltdowns or our poor social skills? Yes even we get offended by the truth too, it's part of being human. My dad will get on my mom's back about her weight and tell her to join a gym or go with him and she tells him she wants him to accept it, not try and change it. My mom doesn't even moan about her weight and trust me, it would even annoy NTs too if someone whined about their weight and did nothing to fix it. It's either they accept it in themselves or work three times as hard to be thin. I have big boobs, but I certainly wouldn't like it if people always made comments about them. Do I wish I had smaller breasts? Yes. But it's expensive to make them smaller and I doubt my insurance will cover it since it's not medical so I accept I have big boobs and not make a fuss about them even though I am aware of the solution. But I don't want to pay any big money for it or be in debt because I couldn't afford it in the first place. Sure it's the truth I have big boobs but I don't need to hear it. I don't need to hear anything about it. I am sure we all have things we don't want to keep hearing from people about our bodies rather it's how thin we are or our stretchmarks or scars, the size of our butts or hips or thighs and I remember how much it would hurt to be told how I can't talk right and how funny I talk. I don't mind getting asked where I am from and being told I sound like I am from Australia or New York or Boston. I just saw on a Facebook groups recently in an aspie group about a parent saying their a child was invited because a teacher told her to invite that kid and the person who posted about it was her child the parent said about and she was offended and hurt by it and was glad her son didn't hear her say that. Hey it was the truth the parent said it and even other aspies agreed it was mean of her to say that. Oh the irony.

I have seen a few aspies on here get offended with the truth. I will never forget when a person posted here what is it about her that piss people off so me and one of the WP mods and others told her things she does that pisses people off and she whined about how all mean we were to her. Yeah that pissed me off because she asked us and then called us mean for our honest answer. Now I see there is no point in telling that person what they do wrong and even if they ask, no point in answering because they have no intention to change so why even bother with the truth?

Norny, that is a lot of points to handle all at once, but I'll try to address one at at time.

1. Absolutely the brain has a very complex chemical reward system, but that's not the point. For you to get my point you have to put certain things into proper perspective like the fact that the words we created of "pleasure" and "pain" are simply conceptual models to describe different levels of stimulation that our brain can receive and/or simulate itself. Stimulation exists and can be measured. Pleasure and pain do not and cannot.

A similar situation exists in thermodynamics where we use the labels of "heat" and "cold" to describe levels of a certain type of kinetic energy. Here, heat exists at different levels, but cold does not. Our concept of cold is a model we use to refer to some level of the absence of heat energy. Our instruments measure heat or energy level. That's all there is.

This tendency our minds have to separate things into dichotomies is actually part of the hive-mind software. It's a set of conditionals used to modify input data so that it can be more efficiently sorted for storage and retrieval. Instead of applying associative descriptions to data that place them on an infinite line of possible levels, it's much quicker to sort them in terms of yes/no, good/bad, hot/cold, pain/pleasure, - which is in binary fashion.
The overall purpose of conditioning data this way is for very quick sorts, which puts all data into ordered hierarchies for future reference.

Another example of this is electrical energy. We label it in terms of positive and negative, but it is all one thing. Stimulus is all one thing. Heat energy is all one thing.

Now to move on, how our brains like to work (software wise) is within a never ending process of conflict and resolution, which could also be described as simply + and - like electricity, or pretty much any other dichotomy you choose to use.
In order to be able to use our brain's problem solving abilities, to reason, recall, sort, and so on, we are geared to either seek out or modify input data so that we can imagine it to be a problem, and then proceed to solve it.

What I'm describing here is an algorithm, similar to what makes your computer uses to make decisions about how applications work. An algorithm is a code that you cannot see, like ordered energy. All you can see is a shadow of the code, or pattern that the code leaves in material objects.

I realize some people cannot make it past this point of realization about what a code is, but it is a provable claim and not some sort of speculation.
For instance if I ask you to show me a code, then you may write a pattern of characters out on a sheet of paper. Well that's a shadow, or representation of the code in question, but not the code itself. What you have on your paper cannot perform a task or directly control the behavior of material objects. The code exists in your mind, and there it can control your behavior and thus make changes in the material world.

Now to move on, the algorithms that run in our brains/imaginations have been around a very long time and have been subject to the gauntlet of natural selection, thus honing them for efficiency to accomplish certain tasks.

Now this is a key point: What tasks are these algorithms best honed/evolved for?

Well, if the algorithms actually succeeded in really solving problems, so that the problem no longer exists, then they would have worked themselves out of a job a very long time ago.
No, instead they not only ensure their job security, but have mechanisms in place to ensure their growth and spread. That's a measure of success in evolution. The more aggressive the means, then the quicker the goals are reached.

This is why it's so easy to observe how, for the most part, solutions actually create more problems or conflicts that require solving. Some people would call it a snowballing effect or similar to a chain reaction. In the behaviors of NTs I find it quite easy to point out this tendency, and further to point out ways in which the imaginations of individuals aggressively pursue the creation of more conflict, or drama-starters as they are sometimes called.
For those who live within imagination, this process gives more meaning to their lives.
It causes both "pleasure" and "pain" because one is meaningless without the other. The brain tries to treat them as they are two different things, but they are one thing that fuels a never ending cycle.

Quickly I will cite the experiment done with pigeons that peck the button for a food pellet. If a pellet comes out for each peck, then the pigeons eat much less food and spend little time messing with the button. But, if a food pellet only comes out sometimes, then the pigeons quickly change their behavior to something akin to obsession with pecking the button, and they also over-eat.

Here, pecking the button and getting no result is the logical equivalent of "pain" in the mind. The subsequent behavior of the pigeons is that the algorithm is able to apply binary sorting, and overall the algorithm gains power, - as in it adapts in order to justify its own existence.
For the pigeons who get food with each peck, then there is little need for the algorithm to gain in power or control. Some people would describe this in terms of not needing to think, or not having a purpose for their lives.

Fortunately, we don't live according to how the Behavioralists think we should live.

+1

2. While saying I hate NTs is not technically accurate it is useful for some purposes.
It's more the process of deception and unnecessary layering of conditionals to achieve a certain outcome that I would "hate". And since "hate" is part of one of those dichotomies that the mind uses for convenience, it would be more accurate to say that my preference or mode of choice would not be the mode that NTs use for a few reasons, to include inefficiency, and deliberate deception.

1. NTs are the host to the hive mind. That is they are primarily controlled by a larger set of algorithms that they did not and do not originate as individuals.
A school of fish displaying synchronized swimming is also host to a hive mind or system intelligence. Considerations for the fish change over time, but the primary purpose is survival. The patterns of synchronized swimming can quickly adapt, but this is not controlled by any individual fish. The intelligence involved has a one-to-many topology.
For the most part NTs perform the same actions and have the same goals in relation to a point on the time-line, - that is they are swimming in a synchronized pattern.

2. Animation has nothing at all to do with the comparisons of environment that I made. The analogy was dead-on. Given some actual difference in environment that has no "real" effect on behavior or survival, a conceptual leap is made involving many assumptions and non-direct associations between data, resulting in a reasoning pattern that falls completely within the realm of concept (imagination).

In my example, the only thing that prevents you from understanding why the aliens suddenly felt offended was because you hadn't yet the imaginary concept downloaded into your own brain. Well, perhaps you did have it downloaded, but it existed only as a simulation and was not considered part of your primary reality, - so you forgot that such a remark would be offensive to them.
In a hive situation that sort of reasoning would not be necessary. Fish do not have to conceptually reason out how they are going to swim in order to stay synched with the school.

Also, an object is not "undeniably" white. White is a conceptual label as well, and so could mean something else, or have multiple meanings. In the alien example the offense may have been because the word "white" had an alternate meaning.
In the conceptual world things can change depending on where you are on the time-line.

3. You may define insane how you like as it is widely considered to be a grey area.
What I describe as being insane is when a person takes an imaginary concept, either individually created or shared among many, and acts on it as though it were real.
If you just look around you, then you will see this happening everywhere, mostly due to shared imaginations. Given the current situation, it is most common for people to consider a shared imaginary concept to be valid or real just because it is a shared agreement to think so. In this case believing in "ghosts" is not considered insane, but normal. If an individual points out that there is no "ghost" other than inside the imaginations of the group, then that individual is called insane.

For one example, the belief that individual words, that we have created in order to use as a language to communicate information, have the real ability to directly harm another person is one of those imaginary things that the masses have been taught to buy into.
There are many reason why we have convinced ourselves that these things we are taught have a basis in reality. One of the biggest reasons is due to group or mob behaviors.
If we were the only two people on earth, then you could call me insane all day long and it would have absolutely no effect in reality. However if I were one amongst a mob that shared your beliefs and you called me insane, then it is likely the others of the group would actually act out and cause negative consequences for me. I would quickly associate the word with the real consequences, which may include physical pain. Most people adjust their beliefs and behaviors in order to avoid such things. This is independent of objective reasoning because the imaginations of others comes to bare on the decision making process.

So back to #2. I'm not saying it's ok to harm others as you please by saying words.
I'm saying that saying words cannot harm in reality.
To me communication is a means to share information, not a means to inflict psychological manipulation by way of simulated sensory input.

Perhaps "am I fat" was a cliched example. My point was that an honest response is the worst response to those types of questions. I then went on to explain why it is the wrong response. I can only speak for myself: I don't mind being corrected in most cases. And I rather know the truth than a lie. For other people, lying is the best option.

Truthfully: if a person wears his/her clothes right, a fat person doesn't necessarily have to look bad.

1. Because that's what an identity is, - a set of conditionals by which most people sort input data. All input is run through the filter of the individual identity. It is completely conceptual / imagined. Input data no longer remains just data or information, but it is transformed into dichotomies that either serve the identity (support it) or do not.
All identities are imaginary.
Yes, autistics have an identity because they are forced to have one by our society. They simulate it. They try to act as though their simulated identity is primary to their reality, but it is not. That is one of the major disconnects between the neurotypes.
To NTs the identity is their primary reality.

Many autistics simulate both the identity and the behaviors that go along with it. Otherwise, how could you convince an environment full of NTs that you actually have a normally functioning identity? You are forced to act out in visible ways, such as rejecting other autistics.

Depression is one of those words that suggest a dichotomy of something that doesn't exist as two separate entities. The lack of what we would call positive feelings, or those coming from certain reward chemicals, results in what we describe as depression, just as a relative lack of heat is described as cold.

The key is more in how those reward chemicals are originated. If your primary reality was based in concept (identity), then it would be quite easy for you to use your imagination in order to induce reward chemicals. Your imagination would be very convincing to your brain because you would consider it primary. NTs are like this.
If you were unable to convince yourself that imagination was primary, then it would be much harder for you to use thoughts to make yourself feel good consistently.

2. "unless the primary goal of humanity is to be unhappy"

YES, that's exactly it!

Technically I would not use those exact terms.
From my posts above you should follow the logic of self-serving or sustaining algorithms.
The long term existence of the algorithms depends on continuous conflict and resolution cycles, which is basically another way to say "a goal to be unhappy".

If everyone's needs (both real and imaginary) were met, then the whole system would shut down.


In my imagination? - yes, all concepts are addressed in the imagination.
To me what differentiates the real from the unreal is how well an idea aligns with outward observations in the real world of material.

I'm describing underlying mechanisms that represent real observable actions by material objects.

The fish indeed school, and there are underlying reasons for this that are at least partially reflected by the observable patterns we see. It has nothing to do with how the fish "think" they feel about what is happening.

p.s. I know I didn't get to everything. Thank you for the thought provoking questions and considering my statements.

Yes. And you may be tempted to suggest other clothes that look good. That would be honest, logical, and yet wrong. It is best to say they look fine. Maybe even say nothing could make them look fat.
I'd like to add this is just one example, perhaps an overused one. The moral of the story is that lying is the answer. Lol.

Yes, because "wears right", "looking good", or "looking bad" is all imaginary stuff.

The brain quickly twists it around so instead of neutral information it becomes grounds for conflict or drama.

When you can use imagination to decide what looks good an bad, then the possibilities for creating conflict are endless.

Sounds like a very NTypical behavior.

No, it's typical a**hole behavior. I have seen NTs hate that word too and get upset about it when anyone uses it. But it's honesty right?

Well, it's rather uncommon when people don't tell you that you are "weird" or "ret*d" or "stupid". Usually they do (and feel that it's the right thing to do).

People don't call me those things anymore (unless it's online since people love to hide behind the screen and say mean things). I wonder how on earth do people here find all these immature people in the real world. They make it sound so common.