The type of people to blame for aspie loneliness

Page 3 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,327

16 Aug 2021, 9:26 pm

SharonB wrote:
QFT wrote:
SharonB wrote:
- it seems that the men maintain less relationships than women.


How would you explain this, in conjunction with your other belief that men are the ones more likely to ignore the women?

Actually it would fit quite nicely: many men in my experience don't initiate or maintain as many relationships; they "ignore" most everyone


If they ignore "everyone", regardless of gender, then they are not sexist. Being sexist means ignoring specifically women.

Now, if men were to specifically ignore women, then women would be lonelier, as I described earlier. But if men ignore everyone then men would end up lonelier. So the fact that men ended up lonelier implies that men ignore everyone as opposed to just women, which would mean they aren't sexist.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 52,062
Location: Stendec

17 Aug 2021, 8:50 am

funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Everyone but ourselves.
What are you referring to?
The title, nothing more.
Agreed.  Lonely people have no one to blame but themselves.

If you want people to be interested in you, then be interesting.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 14,740
Location: I'm right here

17 Aug 2021, 8:51 am

Fnord wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Everyone but ourselves.
What are you referring to?
The title, nothing more.
Agreed.  Lonely people have no one to blame but themselves.

If you want people to be interested in you, then be interesting.


I'm not actually interesting, charming or smart, but I can pretend. :oops:


_________________
Be reasonable, demand the impossible.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 52,062
Location: Stendec

17 Aug 2021, 9:20 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Everyone but ourselves.
What are you referring to?
The title, nothing more.
Agreed.  Lonely people have no one to blame but themselves.  If you want people to be interested in you, then be interesting.
I'm not actually interesting, charming or smart, but I can pretend.
Yes ... "Fake it until you make it" also works.



Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,118

17 Aug 2021, 11:16 am

Generally, if a lonely person wants to blame someone for their loneliness, it should be themselves. Better not to blame anyone for it, but if one really wants to blame someone, mirrors aren't all that expensive. I suppose that people who've gotten bad mental trouble for being abused or something similiar and thus gotten bad trust issues could blame the abusers, but other than that, one shouldn't blame others for their loneliness.

If someone is too shy or nervous to approach other people and is lonely because of that, then they have my sympathy, but that sympathy flies out of the window if they start blaming others. It's unfortunate if someone lacks the skills and/or courage to approach others, but that doesn't make the other people owe them. It's fine to be sad if other people don't approach you (you as in people in general), but if you never approach others yourself, then you're nothing more than a hypocrite for getting for not being approached. Don't demand from others what you're not ready to do yourself. You can wish for others to approach you without you having to do anything for it and it's okay to be sad if it doesn't happen, but being angry at people when they don't do what you want is wrong, especially when they have no way of knowing what you want.

Personally, I have no idea how to tell if someone is lonely. If someone knows how to tell lonely people apart from others, do share.

That said, back at school, in hobby events (when there still were those; thanks, covid19) and in autism support events, I often approach people who are physically alone at that moment. Maybe they're lonely, maybe they're not, but if I want to talk to someone, then it's my responsibility to go and say hi. I'm not good at reading subtle verbal hints and am even worse at reading body language, but I try to see anyway if there are signs that they don't actually want to talk to me and are just being polite. If I see such signs, I tend to keep the conversation short. If I don't see those signs, I approach the same person several times (if I meet them again) on different occasions and talk to them. If they eventually start approaching me and say hi first, I take that to mean that yes, they do indeed want to talk to me, but if they never approach me first, I take that as a sign that they've only been talking to me out of politeness and that I've probably missed some subtle hints that they've given me that I should leave them alone. And of course, if I come to this conclusion, I'll leave them alone. Of course, with this method, I might end up leaving alone someone who'd like to talk to me but doesn't have the social skills to come to talk to me first, but I see the chances of that happening unlikelier than me bothering someone who's not interested, so doing what I do is the lesser evil.

I don't normally approach groups unless I know most people in it. If I simply know one person from the group, I might go for a fast hi how are you and quick, basic chit chat and then leave, unless the person I know or someone else in the group is clearly still interested in talking to me. This is simply because I hate being unintentionally rude and am rather safe than sorry. I don't want to intrude on friend groups that are already solid in some way.

QFT wrote:
But in any case, other than this one incident -- where it was my mom who did this not me -- I haven't ever invited any girls anywhere. I have no idea how my mom could pull this off. Maybe in Indian culture it is more acceptable than in Western culture. Or maybe my mom just has a lot more social graces than me.


I think I have a pretty good guess: it was in India. As far as I know, in there it's common for parents to introduce potential partners to their children and act as "aprons", as in, as people who are with the potential couple when they meet and keep the conversation flowing (and in very old fashioned circles, probably to also make sure things stay decent.) Those girls probably saw nothing weird in it. I don't know how marriages were formed in Soviet Union back in the day, but I wouldn't be surprised if parents introducing potential partners to their kids was the way to go in your mother's youth. If it was, then it might have come naturally to her.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,161
Location: Pacific Northwest

17 Aug 2021, 12:46 pm

Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
What you seem to have missed is that lonely people are not obviously lonely until they commit a crime or suicide.
As I mentioned in the OP, that other girl actually said, at 1:45, she became her friend BECAUSE she noticed her loneliness.
What exactly did she notice?  A neon sign flashing "LONELY" over and over again?  Or were there other hints?
QFT wrote:
I wish people could do that to me.
So do we all; but, you know what?  Instead of waiting passively for your knight in a chainmail bikini to rescue you from your Dungeon of Despair, why not actively look for someone who is obviously lonely and introduce yourself?



Seeing someone always by themselves, sitting by themselves, eating alone, never hanging out with anyone, this is an obvious sign of loneliness.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,118

17 Aug 2021, 12:54 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
What you seem to have missed is that lonely people are not obviously lonely until they commit a crime or suicide.
As I mentioned in the OP, that other girl actually said, at 1:45, she became her friend BECAUSE she noticed her loneliness.
What exactly did she notice?  A neon sign flashing "LONELY" over and over again?  Or were there other hints?
QFT wrote:
I wish people could do that to me.
So do we all; but, you know what?  Instead of waiting passively for your knight in a chainmail bikini to rescue you from your Dungeon of Despair, why not actively look for someone who is obviously lonely and introduce yourself?



Seeing someone always by themselves, sitting by themselves, eating alone, never hanging out with anyone, this is an obvious sign of loneliness.


No, it's an obvious sign of being physically alone. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're lonely; they might like being by themselves. And even if they are lonely, they might rather be alone than in the company of people that don't meet their specific requirements. They might also like being alone in that specific place, like school so that they can focus on studying, and don't want to be bothered there, but have enough friends outside of that specific place.

Human interaction is complicated.



HeroOfHyrule
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2020
Age: 20
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,838
Location: U.S.A.

17 Aug 2021, 1:03 pm

Fireblossom wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
What you seem to have missed is that lonely people are not obviously lonely until they commit a crime or suicide.
As I mentioned in the OP, that other girl actually said, at 1:45, she became her friend BECAUSE she noticed her loneliness.
What exactly did she notice?  A neon sign flashing "LONELY" over and over again?  Or were there other hints?
QFT wrote:
I wish people could do that to me.
So do we all; but, you know what?  Instead of waiting passively for your knight in a chainmail bikini to rescue you from your Dungeon of Despair, why not actively look for someone who is obviously lonely and introduce yourself?



Seeing someone always by themselves, sitting by themselves, eating alone, never hanging out with anyone, this is an obvious sign of loneliness.


No, it's an obvious sign of being physically alone. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're lonely; they might like being by themselves. And even if they are lonely, they might rather be alone than in the company of people that don't meet their specific requirements. They might also like being alone in that specific place, like school so that they can focus on studying, and don't want to be bothered there, but have enough friends outside of that specific place.

Human interaction is complicated.

This is why I included "looking anxious" when I was describing what I see when I notice someone who seems "lonely". Sometimes people who are feeling "lonely" very obviously want to interact with others and seem stressed out about not knowing how to go about it (watching other people interact a lot, going to talk to people but then not doing it, etc.). I also know that I do this kind of stuff, so that's probably why I notice it and get why people are doing it.


_________________
I use he/him pronouns.

I like playing video games, watching cartoons and anime, reading, and cooking.

I also enjoy learning + cataloguing information about different types of animals and plants.

Empathy Quotient: 34/80
Systemizing Quotient: 104/150
Friendship Quotient: 56/140
Autism Quotient: 36/80

RAADS-R: 169

CAT-Q: 153
Compensation: 57
Masking: 47
Assimilation: 49

Your broader autism cluster (Aspie) score: 144 of 200.
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 63 of 200.
You are very likely on the broader autism cluster (Aspie).


SharonB
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,031

17 Aug 2021, 1:47 pm

QFT wrote:
SharonB wrote:
QFT wrote:
SharonB wrote:
- it seems that the men maintain less relationships than women.


How would you explain this, in conjunction with your other belief that men are the ones more likely to ignore the women?

Actually it would fit quite nicely: many men in my experience don't initiate or maintain as many relationships; they "ignore" most everyone


If they ignore "everyone", regardless of gender, then they are not sexist. Being sexist means ignoring specifically women.

Now, if men were to specifically ignore women, then women would be lonelier, as I described earlier. But if men ignore everyone then men would end up lonelier. So the fact that men ended up lonelier implies that men ignore everyone as opposed to just women, which would mean they aren't sexist.

I am avoiding talking about sexism with you b/c our conversation didn't well before and I don't fancy rehashing that.

People ignore people in a particular order. I find preference tends to be based on likeness to oneself (with an infinite number of axes). It seems that NT and ASD folks use different axes in large part. Example: my NT boss had a lot of friends like him: same gender, same skin color, same socio economic status (different levels of empathy and thinking) while I have a lot of friends like me: same empathy, same deep thinking (different genders, skin colors and socio economic states). Then of course there are the differences we prefer in our friends: I am an extrovert, but my closest friends are introverts. I am energetic and expressive, but my closest friends are calm and reserved. Accident? No. It's good to have sameness and differences. If people are always avoiding the shy person, they are missing out. If the shy person is always avoiding people, they are missing out. Try some openness and vulnerability, people.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,327

17 Aug 2021, 2:18 pm

Fireblossom wrote:
I try to see anyway if there are signs that they don't actually want to talk to me and are just being polite. If I see such signs, I tend to keep the conversation short. If I don't see those signs, I approach the same person several times (if I meet them again) on different occasions and talk to them. If they eventually start approaching me and say hi first, I take that to mean that yes, they do indeed want to talk to me, but if they never approach me first, I take that as a sign that they've only been talking to me out of politeness and that I've probably missed some subtle hints that they've given me that I should leave them alone. And of course, if I come to this conclusion, I'll leave them alone. Of course, with this method, I might end up leaving alone someone who'd like to talk to me but doesn't have the social skills to come to talk to me first, but I see the chances of that happening unlikelier than me bothering someone who's not interested, so doing what I do is the lesser evil.


Well, you just articulated the exact reason why I don't approach people. In my case, almost everyone gives me the "signals" that they don't want to be approached. There were few exceptions though. For example, I still can't forgive myself I didn't approach that girl at the math class back in 2015 who kept sitting close to me and looking at me. And I also can't forgive myself for inviting a certain other girl in 2016 who tried to prolong the time that she was "showing me where the mailboxes are". But, other than those two girls (and a couple of others), I don't have any such regrets. Why? Because nobody other than them ever wanted to talk to me. How do I know it? By the exact method you just described. You told me that if they don't approach you and its always you who approaches them then it means they don't want to talk to you and are just being polite. Well, that is exactly what I am thinking. And in my case this this exact criteria tells me that nobody, except for the above described exceptions, ever want to talk to me.

Fireblossom wrote:
I think I have a pretty good guess: it was in India. As far as I know, in there it's common for parents to introduce potential partners to their children and act as "aprons"


Yeah, except that I wasn't going to date them. My mom should have known this because

a) I had American girlfriend at the time

b) I told her I don't date colored girls

c) If it "was" a date, which of those three girls would I be dating? Wouldn't she have invited just one of them instead of all three?

Fireblossom wrote:
I don't know how marriages were formed in Soviet Union back in the day, but I wouldn't be surprised if parents introducing potential partners to their kids was the way to go in your mother's youth. If it was, then it might have come naturally to her.


I am actually not so sure either. At one point my mom said that one of her relatives facilitated introducing her to my dad. But then she also said that she found my dad all on her own when she wanted to participate in some tourist group that my dad was leading. So I am not sure how to put together those two things, I would have to ask her.

One thing I do know is that she found it weird that my American girlfriend, who is devoted Christian, had her parents serve as aprons. So that should indicate that this is not what she used to. But at the same time she did try to get over-involved in relationships I had. So maybe her mindset is something in-between. Like not outright apron but sort of indirectly going in that direction?

In any case, I am sure the idea of marrying Indian girls WOULD HAVE been weird back in Soviet days. For one thing the "iron border" prevented this situation from even being on the table. So the fact that it was never done would make the idea appear out of line. Although I have no idea since I only saw Soviet Union back when I was little kid so I have no idea what their mentality really was. It just intuitively feels that way. I mean they liked everything to follow standard patterns. They had the same textbooks all across the country (with the titles being the name of the subject and the number of the grade) they had the same shape of houses, etc. So why would they all of a sudden decide to marry Indian girls? But again who am I to tell, I haven't lived there as an adult.



StrayCat81
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 24 Jul 2021
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 173
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

17 Aug 2021, 3:45 pm

SharonB wrote:
Try some openness and vulnerability, people.

I've actually tried it, very traumatic since humans just try to copulate or get angry all the time. Where do you find people who are safe for being vulnerable with? Plenty of cat and dogs, but humans?



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,327

17 Aug 2021, 7:22 pm

SharonB wrote:
I am avoiding talking about sexism with you b/c our conversation didn't well before and I don't fancy rehashing that.


If that is what you think then this was miscommunication. Because I don't remember being angry at what you said about it. I only remember trying to understand how you saw it because I saw it differently than you. And learning new perspective was always interesting.

So if on my end I was "learning something new" while on your end you thought I was attacking you this is an obvious miscommunication right there.

Now, I didn't even know thats what happened until you said it just now. So think of how many other obvious miscommunications I have with others that I am not even aware of since they never said it? And think of how many others can be avoiding talking to me ALTOGETHER just like you are avoiding talking about SPECIFIC SUBJECT.



SharonB
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,031

17 Aug 2021, 9:13 pm

QFT wrote:
Now, I didn't even know thats what happened until you said it just now. So think of how many other obvious miscommunications I have with others that I am not even aware of since they never said it? And think of how many others can be avoiding talking to me ALTOGETHER just like you are avoiding talking about SPECIFIC SUBJECT.

Good observation. I have people avoid me also, so I get it (to the depth of my experience). You did that externalization thing again: "since they never said it". I propose that you would benefit from some techniques to help you identify when and how to follow up (socially). I have seen you create connection, I am sure you follow up in certain situations (and I know there are plenty of situations not worth the follow up). I don't have any in mind ---- lots of trial and error here also. I'm good at finding resources.

Example: Today I wasn't quite sure what to do about a situation so I went to the front office of a building and made myself visible until I found the help I needed (two people made attempts that didn't work and the third was the winner). If not, I might have sat there all day. I felt fairly helpless, but I knew better than to stand outside the building (or worse go home) and declare that others didn't help. It would be great to have others do more (absolutely!) and when that's not practical (too often :( ) then it's for us to find resources.

Back to your original topic: I can't figure out if I was lonely or not as a child --- I was alone a lot; my mom worried. And now I worry about my daughter: is it that she doesn't want to socialize or that she can't relate to her particular classmates or she lacks "ability"? I don't know. I don't know that she knows. However, I want to make sure that in the future she feels that the ball is in her court --- that she can find folks to relate to and has the tools (incl. information) to do so.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,327

17 Aug 2021, 10:33 pm

SharonB wrote:
QFT wrote:
Now, I didn't even know thats what happened until you said it just now. So think of how many other obvious miscommunications I have with others that I am not even aware of since they never said it? And think of how many others can be avoiding talking to me ALTOGETHER just like you are avoiding talking about SPECIFIC SUBJECT.

Good observation. I have people avoid me also, so I get it (to the depth of my experience). You did that externalization thing again: "since they never said it". I propose that you would benefit from some techniques to help you identify when and how to follow up (socially). I have seen you create connection, I am sure you follow up in certain situations (and I know there are plenty of situations not worth the follow up). I don't have any in mind ---- lots of trial and error here also. I'm good at finding resources.

Example: Today I wasn't quite sure what to do about a situation so I went to the front office of a building and made myself visible until I found the help I needed (two people made attempts that didn't work and the third was the winner). If not, I might have sat there all day. I felt fairly helpless, but I knew better than to stand outside the building (or worse go home) and declare that others didn't help. It would be great to have others do more (absolutely!) and when that's not practical (too often :( ) then it's for us to find resources.


It is frustrating that you STILL ignored the part about sexism, DESPITE my telling you that it was a miscommunication. Do you not believe me or what?

Speaking of "exernalization", how can I possibly know what it was that I done wrong unless you tell me? I mean yes, in case of my conflicts with other people, I spend a lot of time thinking "what it was that I done wrong" (although I didn't do it in this case since I wasn't aware the issue existed). But in those few situations when I finally got the other person to tell me, it often happened that it was something entirely different from any of the things I was thinking of, and it wouldn't have ever occurred to me until I was told (despite all the hours, days, and months of my thinking).

So instead of having me guess, can you simply tell me what it was that I said during our conversations about sexism that made it look like I was having a fight with you? Because it certainly wasn't intention on my end. So I would like to know exactly where the miscommunication occured.



SharonB
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,031

18 Aug 2021, 8:39 am

QFT wrote:
It is frustrating that you STILL ignored the part about sexism, DESPITE my telling you that it was a miscommunication. Do you not believe me or what?

Speaking of "exernalization", how can I possibly know what it was that I done wrong unless you tell me? I mean yes, in case of my conflicts with other people, I spend a lot of time thinking "what it was that I done wrong" (although I didn't do it in this case since I wasn't aware the issue existed). But in those few situations when I finally got the other person to tell me, it often happened that it was something entirely different from any of the things I was thinking of, and it wouldn't have ever occurred to me until I was told (despite all the hours, days, and months of my thinking).

So instead of having me guess, can you simply tell me what it was that I said during our conversations about sexism that made it look like I was having a fight with you? Because it certainly wasn't intention on my end. So I would like to know exactly where the miscommunication occured.


How about instead of thinking "what did I do wrong" or "they need to tell me" you start thinking "what does this person need?" or "what do they need to know?" and approach it that way? Often a "thank you" can better solve what a "sorry" might.

For example, if someone is withdrawing from me (responses are brief, I haven't been seeing them) and I want to maintain the relationship, I could say "thank you for ... what's your thought on...?" to reengage them. Then I notice what works or not. However if my approach is "you didn't tell me" then that would be more difficult as I am not taking personal action or responsibility. Communication is work. For example, I took Communications classes in college along side my engineering degree; my highly introverted BFF read "the art of conversation" which was life changing for her. We have therapists who suggest what we can say and how to approach situations. In my case (Corporate professional), I have had to reach out to peers and other professionals to keep up with the communication demands. If I waited for others to ask or tell me, I'd not be where I am ---and if I did it even better, I'd be further along :twisted:.

It's not so much as miscommunication (which is a given), as it is about effort and impact. A person can intend to be supportive or understanding, but if the impact is not such, there's work to do. It's best when that work is shared. Sometimes it's on one person to do it because they other person has already done theirs.

I didn't read this article in full (because I have read dozens of other articles on the subject), but the first paragraphs seem relevant: https://www.healthline.com/health/inten ... day%20life

Since you ask: I won't talk about gender bias and discrimination (aka sexism which has a bad rep) because you are not (yet?) an ally in the matter (related link below) and the topic hurts and is exhausting for me. The gender discrimination was(is) traumatic for me. I have received years of general invalidation in my life and having to face more skepticism makes me sick right now. To have further conversation with someone about it right now, I would need that person to explore it themselves. On this board I don't have to convince others that ASD folks face bias (and discrimination); I don't want to have to do that about women in technology (or in general).

Related link: https://www.ien.com/operations/news/215 ... -workplace

Thanks for asking ---- friendly teasing: although you didn't really ask. That would look like "Sharon, please tell me why...?" instead of the complaint/implied demand "you didn't tell me...". :skull:



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,327

18 Aug 2021, 12:24 pm

SharonB wrote:
How about instead of thinking "what did I do wrong" or "they need to tell me" you start thinking "what does this person need?" or "what do they need to know?" and approach it that way?


As far as "what does that person need" part, you seem to be contradicting the things you were telling me back then. You see, back then you kept trying to convince me to try to my female officemate even though her behavior indicated she didn't want to talk to me.

Now, you probably would say that you disagree with my interpretation of her behavior. But I am not talking about the bulk of what you were saying. I am talking about a very specific point in our conversation. And that specific point is the following. You told me that you are pretty sure your workmates don't want to talk to you either, yet since you want them to talk to you, you do "what works" in this regard. And in my case, I can't truly know about her wants, but you suggested I similarly do "what works" in regards to my wants (getting her to talk to me).

So that particular advice contradicts what you are telling me now. Right now you are telling me I should ask myself "what does that person need". But back then you told me "don't worry about her needs, just do what works for your needs".

So the question is: did your own opinion change over time, or did I misunderstand one or both of these two things? If you stay behind both pieces of advice at the same time, I would be curious to know how these two things can go together in your head. So, as you see, instead of saying "you are wrong" I said "maybe I misunderstood something". With this phrasing, can you answer this?

Okay, so what I just wrote now was responding to "what does that person need".

Now, with regards to "what did I do wrong", you told me I shouldn't be asking it. But how can I possibly fulfill the person's needs if I don't know what I did wrong on the first place?

As far as "what do they need to know", I focus on it all the time. And my answer is: "they need to know the explanation of my behavior so that they see I am not guilty of what they thought I was". So I explain myself all the time but then they don't want to listen to me. And I find it very frustrating. In fact, in case of my past relationship with women (I am NOT talking about the one in the office to whom I barely spoke to -- INSTEAD I am talking about the ones whom I actually been dating for several months) a lot of them told me that the main reason they broke up with me is that I won't let go of things. But the reason I won't let go of things is precisely because of that need to explain myself. And explaining myself fits quite nicely with "what do they need to know" -- and in fact thats what you said you were doing at your workplace too. Yet it doesn't seem to work that well in my case.

By the way, despite the fact that it didn't seem to work so far, I keep doing it since I keep thinking that "if only I will get people to listen, then maybe it would work". Did I do it with the woman in the office? No, because I don't speak to her on the first place. But I sure DID do it with the women I was dating -- and overdid it according to most.

But back to the issue between me and you. As far as "what do you need to know" I would say you need to know that when we were discussing gender issues I wasn't trying to belittle you in any way. *BUT* in order for me to communicate this information to you, I need to know what part of the conversation to address. And I won't know it until you tell me. If you tell me that I seemed to belittle you when I said A, then I would say "no I didn't beliettle you back then because, despite the fact that it sounds like A suggests B, actually with A I was tryign to suggest C rather than B". But I won't be able to say this until you point out what it was that I said. And that is what I was trying to get you to do.

SharonB wrote:
Often a "thank you" can better solve what a "sorry" might.


That is assuming that I know that lack of appreciation is what caused the problem. Now, from the feedback I have so far, I know that it is *often* the case. But "often" is not "always". I want to know what caused the issue at any particular given situation in order to see how to fix it.

SharonB wrote:
For example, if someone is withdrawing from me (responses are brief, I haven't been seeing them)


Can you elaborate on "I haven't seen them" part? Because this touches upon something else that I am frustrated about. You see, if you actually see them but they don't talk to you, then you know they dislike you. But if you haven't seen them then you don't know that. You think that "oh they are just not around". But then you are hit in the face with a "surprise" that what you thought was not about you actually *was* about you. And that feels awful. Also, just think of the amount of effort they would need to put in order to pretend that they are not around in general when actually they are specifically avoiding you? The fact that they go through all this lengths to mislead you is hurtful in and of itself.

I actually made a thread about this http://dev.wrongplanet.net/forums/viewt ... p?t=397846 although in that thread I was specifically thinking of a long distance relationship I had this year. But I had other situations similar to that. I am wondering: is THIS what you were referring to when you said "I haven't seen them"?

SharonB wrote:
and I want to maintain the relationship, I could say "thank you for ... what's your thought on...?" to reengage them.


But that won't address the issue of what turned them off on the first place.

SharonB wrote:
However if my approach is "you didn't tell me" then that would be more difficult as I am not taking personal action or responsibility.


I thought "you didn't tell me" DOES include taking responsibility. After all, the part that "you didn't tell me" is the one pertaing to "what I did wrong". So that means that I admit I did *something* wrong, which is why I want to know what it is. So that means I do take responsibility.

I guess the part where I might "not take responsibility" is that, *after* they tell me, I will then dispute their interpretation. But that would happen only *after* they answer my question, not before. I can't dispute something they haven't told me yet.

Also, I am not saying that I would dispute it indiscriminately. If they tell me about some incident when I "did" in fact intend to say or do something hurtful, I wouldn't dispute it. But if they tell me about the incident when I didn't intend it but it came across that way, they I would. So basically I need to know what it is, before I can either take responsibility for it or not. Saying "no matter what it was I am sorry" or "no matter what it was I am not sorry", would sound ridiculous.

SharonB wrote:
Communication is work.


But work can be done by both sides. I realize your point that I can't control the other side but I can control myself so I should be focused on the work I should do rather than the work the other person would do. But that point only applies to the situations when we are talking about the third party. On the other hand in the situation where we are talking about the two of us, then yes you "could" tell me what it was I said any minute you choose to. Thats why it is a bit frustrating how you apply the above advice to this situation.

SharonB wrote:
It's not so much as miscommunication (which is a given)


I am not sure what you mean that miscommunication is a given. I think miscommunication could be avoided if both parties were to take time to ask each other question what did they actually mean and clarify things. And, from my perspective, addressing miscommunication is a number one thing to focus on. Because if the two people are not even on the same page, then everything else is just walking in a dark.

SharonB wrote:
, as it is about effort and impact. A person can intend to be supportive or understanding, but if the impact is not such, there's work to do.


But the reason for impact to mismatch the intention is the miscommunication. So I keep thinking that if miscommunication were to be fixed, then the impact would end up matching the intention.

I mean, why would positive intention lead to negative impact? Because the other person mis-interprets the intention and thinks its negative. Why would they do it? Miscommunication. How to fix it? Explain my actual intention and where miscommunication took place. But how can I explain my actual intention if I don't even know what specific interaction ticked them off? So then they have to tell me what interaction it was, and then I can explain myself after that.

SharonB wrote:
It's best when that work is shared. Sometimes it's on one person to do it because they other person has already done theirs.


Yes, that is what some of my ex-s were telling me. But in case of those ex-s the work they did was month prior to the issues we had. So if they did their work several months before I do my work, it just won't work that way. The work needs to be done simultaneously. Thats why I kept telling them to do some more work, but they were saying no.

SharonB wrote:
Since you ask: I won't talk about gender bias and discrimination (aka sexism which has a bad rep) because you are not (yet?) an ally in the matter


The fact that you say that I am not an ally implies a micommunication right there. Not being an ally implies thinking that sexism is a good thing. But I don't think sexism is a good thing. I don't think the women should be discriminated against in a work place.

Now, I realize where the miscommunication can be coming from. There is that idea that if one denies discrimination exists then one is in favor of said discrimination. But this idea might be wrong. Sure, in some cases people can deny it exists in order to prevent addressing it (since that is what they secretly like). But then there are other cases when they honestly don't see it because they weren't exposed to it. So it seems like you assumed I am the former when actually I am the latter.