As someone who identifies as autistic, after particularly notable social encounters, I describe them, best I can, to ChatGPT, and damned if the thing doesn't explain why people reacted the way they did so I can do better next time.
This list is actually just narcissism combined with low self-esteem.
For younger introverts, none of this behavior is necessarily anti-social if the group all shares these same traits. The moment a member of that group has any higher self-esteem than the rest, they will either see that individual as "cool" or as a threat (or both).
To be truly anti-social is to either completely isolate yourself, or be unrelentingly and unreasonably hostile in all interactions. This list is neither. It's just passive aggressive and a lot of ego.
I think this rather describes someone with a cognitive bias which can be cured rather than someone truly anti social (I know someone who I believe is anti social but they tick off a lot more boxes than this. There is an overlap for sure in what you described BUT its a lot more complex than this)
This seems to be a very peculiar and adversarial interpretation of anti-social. I am relatively anti-social and consider this a bit of a character flaw, but would generally say that I do not assume the worst in others and am relatively introspective. It just doesn't come naturally to me, but that does not mean that I think less of others.
The other day someone described themselves to me as an 'empath' which was odd, because in the context of the discussion it was invalidating to hear. And ironic considering they hadn't forseen how I would take it.
Some people have ultimate confidence in their social judgements and the true sign of empathy is a kind of meta-empathy that allows you to consider truly alternative understandings of the world i.e. empathy for empathy.
Almost every every person I've met that describes themselves as empath tends to rank rather low on empathy, under my own judgement at least.
One explanation I have for this is that precisely because empathy is a more rare experience for them, it becomes a more remarkable one, perhaps even overwhelming at times. This leads them to believe that they experience it more than or more intensely than others, when on the contrary the rest of the world is simply more habituated to it and integrate it more gracefully in their ordinary experience.
The other interpretation is that it requires certain level of narcissism or egotism to describe oneself in such flattering terms.
Or ultimately, as the Spanish proverb says: dime de que presumes y te diré de que careces.
Probably some degree of all of this is true in most cases.
Classic. How is it the case that every self-styled "empath" never is? I just don't know. Probably never will. I just don't have enough empathy to puzzle this one out.
I am autistic and asocial fits more than anti-social because I am not actually doing any "anti" behavior, just trying to avoid the beurocratic small talk and general conformist interactions
> when all hope is lost in conversation, retreat into your self
This speaks to me quite a bit, particularly around unfalsifiable topics I'll have with friends/family, such as theology. If we define hope as the idea they'll change their mind and agree with me, seems not much one can do but retreat into themself, right? I suppose I can sympathize with their sentiment before I retreat into myself, but taking this bullet point at face value I'm unsure how to make this a pro-social experience :/
You need to question whether you really need to have the conversation in those terms. A conversation about religion/theology is not like a conversation about physics or math. If you insist on applying scientific rigor to matters of faith, you are and will remain fully confused.
I bet if you observe your own mind for long enough, you'll find some part of your life which requires you to have faith too. Use that to understand your friends and family better. The next time you find yourself in a conversation with them about religion, ask them about their faith (not their religion). You will gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding of how they navigate the world.
If you can have that conversation, go ahead and ask them about their religious beliefs, withholding judgement unless/until they say something morally objectionable. You can think of their religion like any other mythology, and you get to play sociologist for a while. There's a fascinating variety of responses people give to even fundamental questions - e.g. "what is god?".
This open approach is not only much easier for everyone, it's also more useful in the long term. My neighbor has an interesting mashup of beliefs that includes a decent chunk of Christianity. She sometimes has bad anxiety, and unfortunately she can't afford treatment for it. I've helped her out of panic attacks using two methods: 1 - I've given her a clonazepam tablet and 2 - I've quoted scripture to her (e.g. "behold the lilies of the field"). Both methods work, and the latter tends to work faster.
It's different if the person is using their religion as a cover for engaging in or supporting something morally evil. That's a trickier conversation and often one not really worth having, depending on your relationship and how comfortable/willing you are to attempt to correct them.
Theology is quite predictable rigid scientific field, something like law. You just have to define which set of rules you are using (catholic orthodox, shia islam...) There are thousands of books with notes, precedents... going back thousands years. Thousands branches...
Calling theology "unfalsiable" is ignorant. Like saying math is unfalsiable, because there are multiple geometries and nobody understands it anyway.
How about the old fashioned freezing with a face contorted in fear like your being held at knife point unable to think of anything to say and just waiting to be able to leave? When you get asked a question, fumble over your words and say something stupid. Later on, you can reflexively watch the memory played over and over again so you're even worse the next time. If you see anyone you met during the encounter afterwards, you can just panic and try to hide your face and escape.
That's a lot easier and comes off more natural IMO.
It's as if you know me, I can feel myself panic whenever anyone asks me anything, and I end up saying completely the wrong thing as if I wasn't fully in control of my thoughts.
>When you get asked a question, fumble over your words and say something stupid. Later on, you can reflexively watch the memory played over and over again
I can relate to this so much, my mind seems to bring up those cringe memories randomly and I hate it. If there was a way to just erase those memories I would be all for it lol.
This is soley a list of how to be explicitly negative internally and externally, the people in this thread equating it to disorders need to re-think the text. Its a list of what not to do as a human.
With respect to all; there is an incredible amount of subtle communications that go into standard conversations
(Cognitive behavioral therapy enjoyer l just cut off in traffic) Think positively. He is probably in a rush for a reason. Maybe he's late for a job interview. Maybe his wife is giving birth
The anti-social behaviors I'm seeing are a lot more primitive (engagement and reaction bait, and other "simulated conduct" as I like to call it), and the people engaging in them don't really need a guide. Sarcastic rants like this always strike me as somewhere between tonedeaf and insulting as a result. You know it perfectly well that it's those who should be minding these the most are the ones that never will (and won't even be reading this).
That said, if I may be so hypocritical to add to the list, the heavy reliance on pointing out fallacies is a pretty big one. A lot of the times it simply degenerates conversations into logical golf, with no semblance of trying to actually understand the other person remaining. Though in those cases, that intent was usually never really present to begin with.
I think that a willingness to interpret this as (good) satire can be used to indicate one's own level of socialization especially in adversarial contexts.
I think the most valuable thing here is to not jump to a negative assumption about people, something I wish it followed more closely in its other points. Virtually anyone who has a very different perspective than the group will face friction, and handling that friction gracefully isn't something that comes naturally to most people. People can get stuck in a pattern of handling the friction poorly, but the group as a whole also has the opportunity for grace and understanding that can diffuse the problem, if that is something that is valuable to them.
online sociability protip: writing in all lowercase outside of instant messaging comes across (to me) as weirdly manipulative, status seeking behavior. you want people to read your stuff and to come to some form of conclusion—you wouldn't be writing, editing and posting text otherwise—but you feel you have to put your ideas and your vulnerability behind a moat of detached, nonchalant aesthetics
This isn't a personality issue at all—it's pure disrespect. If someone treated me like that, I wouldn't befriend them or open up to them either. Sincerity is a two-way street.
89 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 80.3 ms ] threadOf course, the majority is always right and we should yield to it right away /s
For younger introverts, none of this behavior is necessarily anti-social if the group all shares these same traits. The moment a member of that group has any higher self-esteem than the rest, they will either see that individual as "cool" or as a threat (or both).
To be truly anti-social is to either completely isolate yourself, or be unrelentingly and unreasonably hostile in all interactions. This list is neither. It's just passive aggressive and a lot of ego.
It’s curious how many people do this. Especially if you try to address their deeply-held beliefs, they’ll just start talking about something else.
Some people have ultimate confidence in their social judgements and the true sign of empathy is a kind of meta-empathy that allows you to consider truly alternative understandings of the world i.e. empathy for empathy.
One explanation I have for this is that precisely because empathy is a more rare experience for them, it becomes a more remarkable one, perhaps even overwhelming at times. This leads them to believe that they experience it more than or more intensely than others, when on the contrary the rest of the world is simply more habituated to it and integrate it more gracefully in their ordinary experience.
The other interpretation is that it requires certain level of narcissism or egotism to describe oneself in such flattering terms.
Or ultimately, as the Spanish proverb says: dime de que presumes y te diré de que careces.
Probably some degree of all of this is true in most cases.
This speaks to me quite a bit, particularly around unfalsifiable topics I'll have with friends/family, such as theology. If we define hope as the idea they'll change their mind and agree with me, seems not much one can do but retreat into themself, right? I suppose I can sympathize with their sentiment before I retreat into myself, but taking this bullet point at face value I'm unsure how to make this a pro-social experience :/
I bet if you observe your own mind for long enough, you'll find some part of your life which requires you to have faith too. Use that to understand your friends and family better. The next time you find yourself in a conversation with them about religion, ask them about their faith (not their religion). You will gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding of how they navigate the world.
If you can have that conversation, go ahead and ask them about their religious beliefs, withholding judgement unless/until they say something morally objectionable. You can think of their religion like any other mythology, and you get to play sociologist for a while. There's a fascinating variety of responses people give to even fundamental questions - e.g. "what is god?".
This open approach is not only much easier for everyone, it's also more useful in the long term. My neighbor has an interesting mashup of beliefs that includes a decent chunk of Christianity. She sometimes has bad anxiety, and unfortunately she can't afford treatment for it. I've helped her out of panic attacks using two methods: 1 - I've given her a clonazepam tablet and 2 - I've quoted scripture to her (e.g. "behold the lilies of the field"). Both methods work, and the latter tends to work faster.
It's different if the person is using their religion as a cover for engaging in or supporting something morally evil. That's a trickier conversation and often one not really worth having, depending on your relationship and how comfortable/willing you are to attempt to correct them.
Calling theology "unfalsiable" is ignorant. Like saying math is unfalsiable, because there are multiple geometries and nobody understands it anyway.
That's a lot easier and comes off more natural IMO.
I can relate to this so much, my mind seems to bring up those cringe memories randomly and I hate it. If there was a way to just erase those memories I would be all for it lol.
With respect to all; there is an incredible amount of subtle communications that go into standard conversations
Me: I'm da king of da highway
That said, if I may be so hypocritical to add to the list, the heavy reliance on pointing out fallacies is a pretty big one. A lot of the times it simply degenerates conversations into logical golf, with no semblance of trying to actually understand the other person remaining. Though in those cases, that intent was usually never really present to begin with.
Then step one is to cast the other fellow as the enemy, and then you create a case against him, leading the conversation in the appropriate direction.
It's a popular way to do it. See all of social media for examples.
nothing personnel, kid
1. your comment is in lowercase 2. see bullet 2 of my post
Sorry, networks, in this context, are too social for me, as they involve other people.