A True Nice Person

Post Reply New Topic

You sound so much like my son ...

OK, I don't think it is deception. I think it is a failure on your part to fully credit the value of taking the initiative to do something productive, and the value of doing service for others instead of for money. Realistically, one can come to a middle ground in figuring out how to talk about it, that won't be bragging but also won't be selling yourself short. It is not bragging or puffery to use positive words and phrases to describe actions. It is EXPECTED in this culture. Hate that all you want, but if you don't do it to any degree at all, you will not be seen for who you are. Get your foot in the door and then go back to being your humble self.

I admire the humble trait, I do, but either you have to accept all that it means socially, at work, and in dating, without blaming others for how you are perceived or never get what you've earned, or you have to figure out how to talk enough of the talk to get where you want to go.

Maybe he is a younger version of lil ole me lol



Actually, an exaggeration is a form of a deception. I will admit that it is not a bald faced lie because there is a lot of truth in an exaggeration. I will admit that I don't mind doing deception if telling the truth will bring harm to someone like their feelings or if telling the truth will get someone murdered. Deceiving to spare someone's feelings and to prevent harm I have to accept as a greater good over pure honesty.



Actually, this assumption that you have about me is non-true. I don't mind helping others out and doing service for others without expectation of reward. In fact, I wish more people would do this. I agree with this but to a certain extent. One still has to be able to have some money to have at least the basic three needs of food, clothing and shelter. One does have to have some degree of selfishness in order to be in prime physical and mental health to be able to help others. One has to have certain bases covered for himself in order to help others. To demand absolute selflessness makes no sense to me.



I guess your right. I'm really trying to be humble here but believe me its difficult.



Which means what you're saying is that it is absolute and not open to question or examination. What you're saying is it is either our way or the highway, is this correct? America claims to be free and to value freedom. How is one truthfully free if one is not absolutely allowed to be one's true self whatsoever and instead one has to contort him or herself to fit into a round hole when he is a square peg?

When they claim that we're free and we have freedom what exactly does freedom even mean? What is the essence of freedom? How are we autistics free to pursue virtue, spin our own straw into gold and be noble in a conformist culture that demands absolute obedience to it without question and examination of its' assumptions?

Knots by R. D. Laing

They are playing a game.
They are playing at not playing a game.
If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me.
I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.



Is society ever fallacious in its assumptions and wrong? Why is society never allowed to be blamed no matter what? What is the reasoning behind this? Yes, more than likely practically one will have to do as you suggest but that doesn't mean that society is perfect? It is far from it?

Why is it always the individuals fault no matter this particular individual's circumstances? How do people come up with this extreme internal locus of control in America as a viable philosophy? How are we always in control of our lives especially ourselves is not independent of external reality? What is the philosophical basis for this? Why doesn't external locus of control have some merit and validity as well? Why is external locus of control and external entities never at fault no matter what one's circumstances are?

Why is one never allowed to blame any external entities no matter the circumstances? Is society ever at fault? Is society ever wrong? If it is not, how if it consists of imperfect humans with imperfect perceptions of reality? How do you and other Americans come up with the logical and philosophical basis for this internal locus of control and this belief in absolute control of one's life?

How can one always be in control of one's life if one does not have an absolute understanding of existence and reality, past, present and future? What is the basis for this American belief and other beliefs like self-reliance? If one is responsible for one's actions unless it is obvious how can one know what the virtuous actions are to take in all cases for all of time and space? How is accountability always virtue and responsibility always virtue if one is ignorant on the many aspects of reality and one can never have a full understanding of reality and existence?

How do we all live our lives with virtue and goodness? Why are American beliefs and standards are always considered virtuous, noble and good and are never open to question and examination?

Cubed.....

Keep in mind the differences in perspective and logical reasoning between NTs and those of us on the spectrum. "D" has a child on the spectrum but isn't herself. Thus the reasoning she states "you sound like my son".

We tend to be direct-to-the-point, a trait that most NTs abhor with a passion, while non-NT personalities abhor the "beating around the bush" mindset.

I completely agree all the embellishment of conversation and exaggeration of practically EVERYTHING is.... unnecessary, however, the fact of the matter is WE CAN'T CHANGE THIS. The world is run by NTs (and/or psychopaths and sociopaths), always have and always will be.

As I'm beginning to understand the world around me and talking to people in various sub-cultures not all NTs are the same. I'm beginning to wonder if we can pigeon hole all non-autistics into "NT"? IMHO, I say no because the world is more complex than this even though I use the term for convenience and ease of use. Change happens all the time and it is considered that the only constant is change. Things are temporary and non-permanent.

If your attitude was accepted during human history we would not have had the Civil Rights Movement, right. We wouldn't have women's suffrage? I've been told by others to accept the world as it is. Why? Look at the world today vs. the world during the time of Ancient Rome. I think we've done better and come a long way. Why do you and others have this belief that one should not even try to question and challenge?

Socrates practiced his philosophy and questioned others until he was tried, sentenced and executed by the Athenian Citizenry. Guess what? We have modern Western Philosophy that was propagated by the student named Plato. We would not have had the "I have a dream" speech by MLK Jr.

How do you come to your belief that one should not sometimes question, examine and sometimes go against the Status Quo and say no? Sometimes it can pay off.

Besides, people in America believe that one can do anything he sets his mind to right? One is supposed to be positive right. Isn't this a form of negativity? If this is to be believed does this mean that there are cases in which positivity fails and that a positive attitude is sometimes not a virtue at all? What is with these inconsistent standards?

This is why I'm with StarvingArtist and Tarantella in trying to get rid of the misogyny on wrongplanet. Why can't one do what is right because it is right even if one loses? Why can't the fight itself be more important than the outcome of the fight. Even if both of them lose on this, they still fought for what they believed in especially if it had the possibility of having virtue.

Even if one is destined to lose may be it is the action and the process that truthfully counts. Why can't the process and the answer be one?

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 09 Jun 2014, 1:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

In essence, there is a gradual gradation between NT's and non-NT's. it's a Spectrum all around.

It can be BSing in a sense, but a little BS can go a long ways . The statement doesn't say anything that isn't true, and it doesn't even exaggerate, but it does say it in a way that makes it sound more impressive than it actually is just by phrasing things a certain way and structuring your words properly. Just about anything can be made to sound quite nice when you phrase it in the right way (note: I said "just about" anything).

I look at it as being similar to posts on this forum. If someone writes a well-written post with proper punctuation, a good vocabulary, and an interesting message, people will be more likely to read it and respond positively. Whereas if someone writes a post in broken english/text speak with missing periods, run-on sentences, and a few small misspellings, it will probably be largely dismissed even if it says exactly the same thing. Presentation makes a big difference, and doesn't necessarily have to be deceptive to be effective.

Yes, flowering things up is deception, I agree with your son and the cube; I don't understand all this sugar-coating culture as well, I see a lot of such sugar-coating advice regarding dating profiles on forums, some of the advice I recall who was given to others: "Oh don't say you're employed - say you're volunteering and helping family" , "Oh, don't say you work in an entry job, just say you have a job and willing to expand", "Oh, remove this group picture, you appear short there", "oh remove that pic, your friend looks more cute than you"...etc

Like, seriously.

I know what you're saying. Of course one should have excellent grammar, vocabulary, and proper punctuation. I have no problem with excellent manners, being polite, helping out when needed without expectation of reward. I say my please and thank you and I do try to make eye contact the best I can. I should work on my grip for my handshake (I don't like it but will compromise on this). If one burps one should say excuse me. I agree with all of this and the proper rules of etiquette and the things that make one a decent human being. In fact, I wish people did more of these things. I don't mind white lying either because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

This is where I do have a huge problem. The issue I have is being forced to contort oneself to this salesperson, extraverted archetype when one does not fit this persona especially in employment. This is the demand today and I'm sorry but this isn't about social skills. This is about identity and one's personality. This is about being forced to change one's persona to fit an archetype that one is not.

^^^ This right here. Thank You Boo. By the time you're done doing all of that one is presenting someone whom is not the real "you." I say in employment, let's cut out the nonsense, be ourselves while being respectful to others, and get to work. Yes, there will be things we don't like. I say, we should be allowed to complain about it for a few but in the end the complaining has to stop, we may need to bust our asses to knock it out and get it done.

On the dating profiles, just answer the questions as truthfully as one can with respect of course for others and if 99.5% of the gender you're seeking passes you by then so be it. It's the 0.5% that counts.

I feel your pain, I do, and we could spend hours and hours on these philosophical discussions. But I don't have hours right now. I still have a job and a family. I realize my summary is probably quite inadequate, but I basically called it like I see it.

It isn't flowery to present some confidence in your choices, and show that you are making the best life possible with what you have, if that is your truth. Turning your energy into things that help others instead of simply entertaining yourself all day while unemployed IS making the best life possible with what you have. OK, the other poster overdid the flowery language a bit, but you can say something less and still exhibit confidence in the fact that you are making the best possible choices you can in this moment.

What I see in my son is someone who, because he values being humble, is never willing to give himself credit even when credit is due. Yet he will lament it when someone underserving gets the credit instead. So, to me it looks like he has a choice: either allow others to see enough of your accomplishments to receive the EARNED credit, or be happy for the person who got the recognition you willingly gave up. In my son's ideal world no one would get the recognition, we would all do our best simply for the value of the effort, but lovely as that concept is, that is not how US society works: rewards are motivation and, so, rewards are given.

In a way, getting the attention of a potential date is no different than getting the attention of the teacher passing out rewards. You don't need to lie, but you do need to get their attention, and also to believe that what you have contributed DOES have value. You will still only get chosen only a fraction of the time - after all, most people contribute things that have value - but you won't ever get chosen if you never allow the value to be seen at all.

You are all fascinating and interesting people (even if you drive me nuts at times, and vice-a-versa). Why can't you, yourselves, believe that?

I had to learn it all the hard way myself, getting laid off from my very first job. After that, I decided humble has its time and place, but jobs and dating are not it.

DW, you could be right and there may be truth to everything you say. I just simply have more questions than answers.

How do we all then live is my ultimate question? Maybe the American culture is the way and there is some truth to American values But I can't accept them as the final truth on everything. To me, they lead to more questions and present contradictions. What is the proper way to live all of our lives with honor, virtue, and goodness?

I wish I knew.

I don't think American culture is "the" way. It has its good points and it has its bad points, I do prefer it to many others, but mostly it is the reality we function inside so survival kind of demands playing by its rules and expectations.

But you get to make decisions and you get to decide where the trade offs end. In my work I advise people with a lot more money and success than I have. It is easy to get resentful. But truth is, I had my chance to grab the brass ring and I saw how I was changing, and I did not like it. So I stepped back. I'm hovering in a career position that gives me a good living but allows me to keep 99% of my soul, values, and priorities. I picked where I was going to draw the line in the world of work. We actually talk about it in the office, how none of us want to be our clients because we all know what it takes to get there, and that is not something any of us want to do to ourselves.

Figuring out where and how you will draw those lines is a difficult thing. We could spend a lifetime talking about it.

But I do have a bunch of work projects that MUST get out the door in the next few weeks, so I had better bow out of this discussion.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 10 Jun 2014, 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't really get your teacher analogy, it doesn't describe this case at all.
What does describe it best is Marketing, and Marketing in its very nature is the art of psychological deception, tricking, making things look or sound better than what they really are.

"Oh I make $1000 a month but this is a sure future investment for a 100k career!"

The thing is I may be laboring under faulty assumptions. Maybe you're right and one may have to do some compromising.

What you need to know is when I am debating and challenging you and others I'm actually debating and challenging myself.

I would like to point out everyone who reads this and I'm not accusing DW of doing this because I do not know her nor her intent. DW may be telling the truth.

This is a tactic that NTs (those in USA) use when they want to bow out of the conversation. There are NTs who will pretend x is going to bow out or say they don't have time to continue to bow out. There are cases in which this is true but sometimes this is a bald face lie. When I ask people thorough questions that question the beliefs they will bow out.

This is because the beliefs that people grew up with help shape their identity and who they are as a person. You question the beliefs and they will quickly run. This is because if you question the belief system you destroy part of who they are. People are not logical but psycho-logical meaning that since the belief system helps to shape their identity they have a lot of emotional investment in their beliefs. They will use logic to defend their beliefs but will not pursue truth for truth's sake. Truth is used as a means to an end and not as the end. This is why Socrates was made to drink Hemlock.

Jonathan Haidt, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt, did extensive research on this.

These are my observations about America though. Our culture is a very conformist culture and not a care-free culture that is promoted. Conformity, compromise, and capitulation are keys to one's success. What is freedom I ask? People say we're free and we're the freest nation on the face of the Earth. To answer this question one has to look at the historical context of America what Americans mean by freedom.

What they mean is that we're free from Government tyranny. We're free from government interference and an arbitrary central power unless we violate someone else's inalienable rights.

Look at the tenth amendment to our constitution.

We are free in the political sense and have freedom in the founding father's context. Here is the problem. Anything else not in the governmental realm is left with the people meaning the social veneer. One's liberty both positive and negative are very limited within the social arena. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liber ... -negative/

The social arena is inundated with extensive, unstated standards that exist that

a. are absolute.
b. one has no say or voting power in the formation of them.
c. one is not allowed to question or challenge them because it would be socially inappropriate to do so.
d. Because of the world structure and other governmental rules of other societies that make it difficult to immigrate to any of them, it is very difficult to leave one's social veneer. It becomes a Hotel California situation in which one can check out but one can never truthfully leave.

IMHO, our negative liberties and positive liberties are severely restricted not by the government but by the social veneer or "We the People."

What DW is saying is that we have no choice but to contort and conform to American NT dictates without question. It's conform or get out but there is no "out."

Very well said Cubed.

the social standards of our society today IS a standard, no matter if we agree with it or not, understand it or not, and heaven forbid you try to change the direction things are going..... Stand against the machine and it will run you down one way or another. that leaves one choosing to stay true to themselves and be destroyed from the outside in or go against what you are to conform to everyone elses standards and be destroyed from the inside out. It's really a no-win situation if you're not aligned with the norm....
As for Americans supposedly being free from a tyrannical government through constitutional protection.... That's almost laughable now days.