New girl in my office

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, what you just wrote is the exact reason why I obsess about her to begin with. If -- instead of just stating the above as fact -- you were to ask yourself a question *why* is it true, the answer could be something along the following lines: somebody well connected is perceived as a better person than somebody not well connected. Well, if so, is there any wonder why I feel so desperate to connect? I realize that connecting to one person in the group is not the same thing as connecting to the whole group (thats why in rare occasions when it happens I still feel bitter anyway). But what else am I supposed to do?! Its called grasping at the straws.



Once again, lets ask WHY is it the case. So the girls presumption is that men are divided by all-good and all-bad. Attractive men are all-good and never have bad intentions. Unattractive men are all-bad and are possible rapists. Now, if thats what girls assume, then that is why I am so DESPERATE to be attractive -- who wants to be classified together with potential rapists? And that is also why I am desperate to have a girlfriend too, since having a girlfriend is the ultimate proof that I am attractive -- which is so vital to validation of myself as a decent human being based on what we just said.

Last edited by QFT on 05 Feb 2020, 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I didn't use f-word in incident 3; I only used it in incident 1. Yet you asked me why is incident 3 any better. Well, you just answered your own question in the above quote.

Here is even simpler point. Lets say I agree that she is reserved with others (well, I don't, but like you said its all relative, so lets agree with this statement for the sake of the argument). Well, it would still be true that she is *more* reserved with me than with others. So you can't explain it based on her ASD alone. The fact that she acts *different* towards me than towards others is the reason why I think its her opinion of me personally as opposed to ASD traits.

No, what I asked is why would it be okay to use the f -word as an insult but not the other words, assuming you think this is the case. I didn't link it to the roommate thing. Maybe it's about where in my post I asked this question, but it had nothing to do with incident 3.

Interesting....there is a deep need to connect with individuals to facilitate connecting with the wider group. Kind of like the Star trek borg or Alexander Dumas Musketeers - all for one and one for all...however you want this girl to yourself? you dont want to share her with the wider research group, or is this part of a greater desire to be accepted by the research team?



You'll find talk-show shrinks often delve into internal and external validation. There are concurrently personal needs where people seek external validation from others before they believe they are attractive and desirable, often psychologists talk about strengthening your internal validation of yourself to boost your self-esteem which lessens the reliance on external validation. The latter might also relieve/extinguish obsessive anxiety over this girl

Whether or not she has ASD traits is related to your expectations, your opinion of her. I am a believer in Both...And. I think rarely is it Either...Or. So, it's BOTH her opinion of you AND her traits (how she interacts with your type, forming in part your opinion of her). As I said long ago, you sounded very off-putting or intimidating, so even at my current age my tendency would be similar to hers, but I am working to "stand up" when I feel intimidated. Believe me, as an engineer, I have been in too many situations where male engineers treat me differently (lesser) and aren't aware. That puts the onus on me since I am aware. You already mentioned that the peer relationship was difficult and it's a bit easier now that roles have been established. Fairly typical for ASD folks. As you briefly mentioned, how would the dynamic change if she were your grader? Interestingly, I was a grader in undergrad. I used different colored pens to mark each problem.

I want to be like everyone else. This includes two things:

1. Being part of bigger group of people where everyone is shared with bigger group
2. Having a girlfriend all to myself

I need both 1 and 2 since everyone else have both 1 and 2.

If you ask me which one I want that girl to be, I don't care. But the problem is that she is neither one -- she avoids me altogether.

Well, if its both, then that explains why I am obsessing about one part and not the other. Its a human nature that when I feel invalidated then the need to defend myself comes first. So if its both her personality issue and her opinion of me, guess which one I would be obsessing over.



The key question is when. Is it

a) I sounded that way during that very first meeting half a year ago

or

b) I sounded that way afterwards without realizing it

If its "a" then what am I supposed to do? I can't change the past. Thats why its so frustrating when one mistake from the past drags forever

If its b, then can you point out exactly how I sounded intimidating? I mean, I didn't "say" anything to her, so is she reading my mind?

Actually this question is not as silly as it sounds. Because I remember few months ago I talked to one of my moms friends about why nobody likes me, and my mom's friend told me that I am always sharing the Truth with people (Truth in philosophical sense, as in deeper meaning behind things) but people aren't ready for it so since I don't stoop down for my audience I push people away. So I asked her "how exactly am I sharing those truths if I rarely ever talk" she couldn't answer my question.

Now, even though you and her said different things, they both lead to the same question: how can i either sound sexist (what you are saying) or share lots of truths (what she was saying) if I don't talk?

I do, however, remember instances where people knew more about me than I thought they did. Like for instance, I remember 15 years ago I was transfering and one of the students knew it. So I asked her "how do you know I was transferring" and she said "everyone knows you are transferring your voice is so loud".



Two questions:

1. If I thought of women as lesser, why would I be looking up to them for self-validation? The fact that I do implies that, if anything, I think of them as greater rather than lesser. I am not saying I do view them as greater, rather I am just trying to point out why it feels so absurd when I am told I view them as lesser.

2. If you are saying they are not even aware of it, isn't lack of awarenness exactly what Asperger is? That points to another confusion I have. When I am doing something without being aware of it, I view myself as a victim: its not my fault I wasn't aware of it. Yet others view themselves -- not me -- as victims. Apparently you are siding with others -- at least when talking about male engineers -- despite the fact that you have Asperger yourself. So can you explain your point of view as whom you view as victim when?



Well, they are not as clear as it seems since in one class I am her grader and in the other two classes we are classmates.

The issue is not that "roles are clear" but rather "its moot since I am not allowed to interact with her".

But I guess I can't be totally positive: if it was that clear cut, then what happens to the graduate students that were already friends and then one of them became the other persons grader? Well, I wasn't friends with her, so that situation wouldn't apply to me. Its just to point out that I am really not sure what those policies are (or else I wouldn't have that question), and a lot of what I do is blind guesses since I don't interact with anyone so I have to fill all those blanks in my head by myself.

But one thing that *is* clear is this: if not sure, then err on the side of caution, at least if it comes to university policies since I don't want to get myself in trouble.



In exact same way that it changed now. Either situation implies I can't interact with her, which is all I need to know.




How did you arrange for it?



I always use red pen when I grade.

Speaking of that class where I am her classmate, among other classmates there are the following people:

1. My officemate I been talking about (a young white lady in her 20s)
2. An older lady (also white) who looks like she is probably 60 or 70, but she is a student here regardless of age
3. A black guy (also probably in his early 20s) whose hair style and mannerisms are closer to high school loser than someone in academia

Looks like they don't have that much in common, do they? Yet they all happily chat together so that if I were to close my eyes and just open my ears they sound like good old buddies in the same age group.

Yet none of them are talking to me.

So why do they think that the difference betweeen me and them is so much greater than the differences I just pointed out that they have among themselves? Thats the other thing that really pisses me off.

As I mentioned before, NT group dynamics work in such a way that acceptance is mostly an organic process which means the three unlikely "compadres" have enough in common to keep conversation going. People connect (whether as part of a group or with a potential partner) fairly naturally. We humans are actually quite good at picking up "fake vibes".

What do I mean by this?

If you are unable to click with the group then approaching them in a different way is going to come across as fake as you would be surprised how well a group of NTs detect an attempts to ingratiate. The best I would suggest is neutrality and pleasantness with these three.

Ok that makes sense

So why do they think that people that do that organically are better? Its like me saying "if someone does math organically thats great; but if someone puts lots of effort into learning math thats horrible". That would be ablist regarding math skills. So are they being ablist regarding social skills? Thats really unfair.

In fact, in case of math just the opposite should be true. I would give extra respect for someone who did all this hard work than to someone who just knows it organically. So why can't they do the same thing with social skills?

Okay, remembering how you called me out on something similar earlier, I am guessing you were probably put off by my use of the word "absurd". Sorry about it, I didn't notice it until I reread it just now.

But in any case, let me stress that:

a) I weren't saying that "you" are absurd. I was saying this "assumption" is -- and that "assumption" has nothing to do with you because that assumption was made by a lot of people

b) My use of that word has nothing to do with your gender. I would have used it regardless of the gender of the person that says it

c) The word "absurd" does NOT imply "not worth talking about". On the contrary, it is the exact thing that makes me WANT to talk about it. If something seems "absurd" yet AT THE SAME TIME lots of people believe it, then maybe I am missing something. So I am trying to understand what is it that I am missing that makes people believe something that is so seemingly-absurd.

d) Continuing on with "c" what I really did was ask a question. But I guess its my way of asking questions that come across confrontational. I remember back when I was doing my first Ph.D., my professor -- who happened to be male by the way -- told me that he was really upset that I was coming to his office to "tell him that the books author is an idiot". But actually I was coming in order to "ask" why the book's author said what he did -- since presumably it was me who was missing something -- but my way of "asking question" came across as if "telling" him that the author is "wrong", which I didn't. Did I use the word "absurd" back then? I have no idea since I didn't have tape recorder. But I won't be surprised if I used it. I could very well say "it is absurd how the author said this equation implies that one" when my intention would have been to ask "am I missing something that the two equations that are seemingly at odds are actually in agreement according to the author".

Herein lies one of your challenges. Try not to equate emotion with logic. Emotional stimulation between people requires some level of emotional empathy. This capacity to understand and read emotion in other people comes naturally to most NTs. So even when you have a group of disparate individuals in both age, ethnicity and looks, they probably read each other well, listen and exchange stimulating conversation despite their different backgrounds.

Secondly why do you have an expectation that because you are hard working and smart that demands respect and attention? its not how real world NT social dynamics work. If this is what you are bringing to the table then what you are seeking is some trade off or exchange of something of value with your workmates. Clearly (and I have experienced this myself) the group have not found that what you have to offer is sufficient that they would seek your participation in their group interaction.

But you want answers - here's a few tips i) join in but sit and listen, spend time listening and acknowledging and wait for a cue to participate but keep it brief ii) never interrupt iii) bring cakes or food to a morning tea iv) offer to help out at a social gathering (e.g. take people in your car if they want to meet up at a bar)

This sought of thing requires investment of your time to eventually emotionally connect with the people you seek to be friends with. If you come across sincere then you have a much better chance of being appreciated.

Its not about logic, I just happened to pick that example. Lets pick a different example. Lets say I need some help to lift something. I would give extra respect to someone who isn't that strong but put all his effort to lift it rather than to someone who did it naturally. Or let me even give you a biblical example:



Or here is yet another example. Back when my mom was a kid, she was getting straight As in all of her classes except for the PE. But the reason she was bad at PE was due to how she was born rather than not trying. She was trying a lot harder than most students. Now, in Russia, they have set criteria as to what performance corresponds to what grade. So for example, if she jumps lengthwise, then the distance she flew would determine her grade. Well, her PE teacher allowed her to jump multiple times just so that she could finally jump at the length that would give her a B rather than a C. He wouldn't do it for any other students, but he did it for her because she was trying hard.

Actually with my mom its more complicated than that. What made him want to do it is that he was friends with literature teacher, and my mom did really well in literature class. But still, the fact that my mom "tried hard" has contributted.

Yet in my case you are saying the opposite: that trying hard would make it worse. Thats where its unfair.



This is linguistic problem. They use the same word, empathy, to refer to two completely different things. The two things are:

1. Being able to understand the other person (what you mentioned)
2. Caring about other people

So what if I am bad at 1 and good at 2? I make social mistakes because I don't understand other people -- but I have good intentions (per part 2) so IF I understand them I would do my utmost for them?

Now lets put side by side two people. One person organically understands the other people, the other person doesn't. I would give the person that doesn't organically understands other people a lot more credit for whatever they offer, since it means that they CARE about others SO MUCH that DESPITE not understanding it they are doing all that hard work to help them.



Thats not what I said. I made an ANALOGY. Just like in math people respect someone hard working IN MATH, in the same way socially they should respect someone hard working SOCIALLY. Incidentally I didn't say I was hard working socially (the reason I wasn't is the exact reason why you tell me not to -- I didn't want to embarass myself) but I am talking about the hypothetical. If I were to "become" hard working socially, it would be really unfair others wouldn't respect me for this.



Nope. Thats not it at all. Here is a proof thats not what it is:

a) That Chinese girl whom I complained about officemate suggested that I help her with her studies. I told her I wouldn't do it because I don't want to be used as a tool, I want genuine friendship.

b) That black student I mentioned a couple of posts above approached me in the middle of the campus (when i was having a conversation with someone at a Christian table), interrupted my conversation to ask me whether I was just "taking that class for a review" (which I am not: I never took it before) and whether I do study groups (which I don't want to do). I didn't outright say no, but I kind of backed out of it because it felt like he thought I am just someone to be used.

The point I am trying to make is this: I know the difference between being useful and emotional connection -- and emotional connection is the ONLY thing I want. Now, when I was talking about being hard-working, I was making an analogy to allude to something emotional. The emotional thing I was alluding to is caring about other people. If someone is socially awkward, yet does all this work to connect, that means that person TRULY cares, as evident by all this hard work in overcoming all those obstacles. Just like someone bad at math still trying to learn math truly cares about math, in the same way someone bad at people doing all this hard work to learn people must truly care about people. Do you see the analogy?



I can't do any of that since I am not invited. How am I supposed to do any of the items you just listed if they don't even say hello to me?!

I was going to answer these separately but my point will address all of these. NTs are capable of reading people without caring. In other words having emotional intelligence does not require they have to care about the other person. For example - professional counsellors attempt to be accurately empathetic which is a skill where they actively listen and demonstrate sincerity by head nodding and paying attention. The client perceives there is a relationship and feels comfortable enough to open up. The reality is the counsellor must maintain objective distance and avoid having personal feelings. Yet they are capable of spending hours talking and many of these "therapeutic" relationships last many years.

NTs likewise don't invest heavily on the "caring:" aspect of the multiple friendships they maintain. Their primary goal is to make a connection and to do that they must carefully read the person/persons they are interacting with whether they are in a group or one on one.

On the issue of your associates asking help from you or interrupting you, don't forget that NTs are the masters of dissonance. They can behave one way to people they have a vested interest in and another way to people they don't. Principles are often fluid. So both the CHinese girl and the black guy might not make demands or interrupt other people whom they have an investment or long term relationship with but they feel they can do this with you because they don't value you in the same way.

This is not about you BTW, it's the reality of the NT world. Infact some of the worst examples of NT dissonance I have witnessed was in church. People espousing christian virtues in their actions and glorifying the work/piety of saints but then behaving in a manipulative and uncaring manner with people they don't care about.

I think the key thing you are missing here is fluidity. There is no good/bad or black and white when it comes to human interaction. For example you are hesitant or reluctant to approach this group because you are not invited. While I would (personally) leave these people alone, since you are keen to gain acceptance then I would just wipe the slate clean (so the speak) and just approach them again but this time stand around and smile and listen. Watch and observe, Pretend like nothing happened. This is exactly what NTs do.